Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Fuller

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. Geschichte (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Fuller

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

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

I tried to find sources on him, but all I turned up was sources on an art curator, and maybe on an artist. His father was notable, but I do not see enough to show him passing general notability guidelines nor notability guidelines for an academic. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – plenty of results via searches, including on Google Books and Google Scholar. Huge biography written on him here. Appears to be pretty notable as a theologian. I've added 3 additional sources to support some more info in the body. Agree that the article needs more though, but they are out there. Depends what and how you search. --Jkaharper (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources added by Jkaharper are quite valuable; here's another one. He has also written numerous books, and those books have been widely cited and reviewed. At the end of the day, he seems to have "had a significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline, broadly construed", meaning he meets WP:NACADEMIC crit. #1, and one could argue that he also meets the GNG and/or WP:NAUTHOR #1. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily passes WP:NACADEMIC #1. I have added more sources to the article. St Anselm (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2021 (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.