Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Chilton

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. (non-admin closure) ミラP 01:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Chilton (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)

No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. One book, Michael J. McVicar (27 April 2015). Christian Reconstruction: R. J. Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism. University of North Carolina Press. pp. 217–. ISBN 978-1-4696-2275-0., mentions him in passing a number of times, and calls him a promising theologian: , but that doesn't constitute significant coverage. However,Tim F. LaHaye; Thomas Ice (2003). The End Times Controversy. Harvest House Publishers. pp. 60–. ISBN 978-0-7369-0953-2. contains one and a half page dedicated to him, and that is something. Add to it the few mentions in passing I see out there, and this is borderline, but might merit keeping. Not seeing any more sources, however, so this may be all we have to work with (well, I wouldn't be surprised if some of his books got some reviews in obscure academic journals, but that wouldn't count for much anyway, as notability is not inherited). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I struggle with the idea of a dedication in a non-notable book being significant coverage. LaHayne is notable and has written notable books. This wasn't one of them. Further, reviews of his books may make a case for the book being notable, but that doesn't always translate to the author. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found passing mention in two blogs on Patheos ([1] [2]) and a few others but his extreme views have not garnered the subject significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. The problem is that there is a notable Canadian entrepreneur who has the same name and I had to add "pastor" to the searches to filter that out. It may have resulted in some missed entries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF #1. Google Scholar shows citations for his top three books at 119, 69, and 44. In fact, he is one of the key figures in both Christian Reconstruction and Preterism. See, for example, the coverage in Julie Ingersoll, Building God's Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction (Oxford University Press, 2015), pp 28-31. StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:PROF as indicated above, also book reviews count as significant critical attention as per WP:NAUTHOR last criteria, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How does he pass criteria 4 of NAUTHOR? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

criteria 4c "won significant critical attention" Atlantic306 (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What significant critical attention? The single book that talked about him?Niteshift36 (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I have to agree with StAnselm. Notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:PROF.4meter4 (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2019 (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.