Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex McFarland (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The nominator has essentially withdrawn after agreeing that the improvements by E.M.Gregory are sufficient to establish notability and push the article past the notability threshold. With only one user remaining in the delete camp, it's sufficient to say the clear consensus here is keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Alex McFarland

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Alex McFarland
• Articles for deletion/Alex McFarland (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Alex McFarland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only references are WP:PRIMARY and without footnotes, it's unclear which references which statements. A quick Google search showed a lot of publications discuss the subject prior to publishing the subjects works. Perhaps the range of publications is enough, but I'm not sure if that meets any specific notability criteria. It certainly fails WP:GNG as they're all connected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This is an obvious piece of advertising and an example of WP:PROMO about a subject who uses a fake PhD degree. The books the subject claims are pumped out of his own organization that appears to be a vanity press. No notability shown. Mere mentions of the subject turned up in a Google search. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• @AuthorAuthor: do you have a source for the Phd thing? I saw it on the page - unsourced. I searched, couldn't find anything in a news search, and removed it because I thought keeping such an accusation it might be a BLP issue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, I see now, on a blog, he had an Honorary doctorate. I don't know whether he used it, or whether some news org hyping him did. It's not a crime, unless he pretended that it was an earned degree. People do use them. I'm not saying I would, but I used to live in a town where the Minster of a large Anglican Church had one. We all called him Dr. when introducing him or adding his name to programs. He was a highly respected, even beloved, figure.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Note that he is President of the Southern Evangelical Seminary, an accredited, degree-granting institution. Article requires a closer look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  Comment - Yes, he is president of that seminary which he claims awarded him an honorary doctorate. A search found no sources of such an honor. The subject uses the title "Dr." in front of his name, even though it is honorary and not earned. Here's a news release from the seminary. The seminary is not regionally accredited by The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The seminary has been criticized since the 1990s for including "subpar academic institutions." [Read about it here]. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Well, it was the Seminary presidency that made me take a closer look. I'm glad I did because his books, evangelizing and radio program produce more than enough WP:SIGCOV to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• WP:HEY I cleaned up the page a little, and did some solid soutcing. McFarlane's views may not be popular in secular circles, but he does get called to do, for example, a long interview on National Public Radio and to write an invited opinion piece in the New York Times. He has been a regular contributor/columnist to periodicals including the Christian Post, the News & Record and Fox News. More to the point, I sourced the page to multiple articles that are about him in news media that he did not have a relationship with. A great deal more can be added. I invite User:Walter Görlitz and User:AuthorAuthor to revisit. And editors to help edit the page. It was terrible at the point when Walter Görlitz nominated it, it's better now, but it has a lot of room for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per sources now on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for finding those sources. I agree that those sources are enough. I'm surprised I couldn't find any. I need a better way of finding them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per sources found by E.M.Gregory. SJK (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:HEY and the nominator's acceptance of the new sources as valid, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as the improvements are sufficient to demonstrate notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.