Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Barnes (minister)

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 No Consensus to delete. The views below are split, even discounting weak/spa "votes". Eluchil404 (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Barnes (minister)

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. yes he's written a few books but none of which are of significant acclaim in wider press (not just Christian circles) to meet WP:AUTHOR. non Christian coverage is about him making comments in the media. cannot find detailed coverage in press about him as subject [1] and in major Australian search engine trove [2]. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 65 mentions to the reverend on the Sydney Morning Herald. Trove shows two mentions for him in The Australian. Coverage in two papers suggests wider coverage likely. Beyond that, quantity of Sydney Morning herald references meets WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

almost all of those google SMH hits refer to another person eg news corp employee, or Australia's Peter Barnes, current chairman of Ansell, or Leading Australian photographer Peter Barnes not the same Peter Barnes the church Minister. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not about to wade through 65 refs that may or may not be about this particular man, but taking merely the dozen or so refs actually cited in the article, there are quite a number of "Letters to the Editor" (not RSS), church newsletters / websites (not RSS), primary sources like his CV (not RSS), and an online store where his book is sold (not RSS). The remainder (Christians call for parents to do the caning (SMH), Caning Kids (ABC radio), and The education department has lost control of our public classrooms (the Telegraph)) are really pushing the definition of "significant coverage", in my opinion. He is mentioned merely as a caning advocate, there's nothing much actually about him or that demonstrates notability. It's not incumbent on editors at an AFD to find sufficient refs to save the article.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adding the keyword "Presbyterian" to the search finds 4 mentions of Peter Barnes on smh.com.au, and 3 on theage.com.au (those are the biggest Sydney and Melbourne papers). There have been other mentions that aren't online, given Barnes' public statements on several issues of community interest. There are reviews of his books in not only Australian, but also American and English media (e.g. [3], [4]). Love him or hate him, Barnes is certainly one of Australia's more notable religious figures. -- 202.124.72.59 (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.124.72.59 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Love him or hate him is irrelevant, one of the sources you give is a blog. Coverage is him making comments not about him as subject . Love him or hate him he definitely lacks indepth reliable coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and the other is a "Presbyterian Journal". Not reliable, not secondary. I get two results with that search at the SMH, both letters. This and this from The Age both just have him making brief comment on an abortion issue - fine for referencing his views thereon once notability is demonstrated, but not significant enough to satisfy GNG. If you have any appropriate sources, please link to them here, because this search seems to generate scads of false positives. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable or secondary? Are you serious? That second link is a recognised theological journal, produced by a US seminary which is (1) completely unaffiliated and (2) on the other side of the planet from Barnes. -- 202.124.72.105 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After searching gnews and NewsBank, I agree with LibStar's and Yeti Hunter's assessments. There are no independent reliable sources that cover Barnes in significant detail, so he does not pass the general notability guideline. He only has passing mentions in independent RSs (e.g. "Presbyterian minister, Peter Barnes commented that abortion is murder"), and none of the articles are primarily about Barnes. Jenks24 (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have to agree with LibStar here. He's certainly an advocate of ~~beating children~~ corporal punishment, and he's been quoted a couple of times, but there's no significant coverage of him as a person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Notable author, based on his publications. WP:PCNOM, my own proposed term for wanting to delete an article about someone or something that does not conform to the conventional socially liberal values. (It is meant as a NONREASON, not as indicating the motives of any particular nominator or any particular contributor.) DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

which criteria of WP:AUTHOR does he meet? You are simply saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. As an admin I expect more.LibStar (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this is an argument that the "Presbyterian Journal" in which he was reviewed constitutes "widespread academic discussion of his work" or whatever the policy term is. It's a book review. One book review does not a notable author make.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.