Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zac Poonen (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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Poonen

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

Zac Poonen was deleted in 2006 after the first nomination, due to lack of notability. The current version, created in 2010 suffers the same problems - there are no reliable independent sources to verfiy/substantiate Poonen's notability as per Wikipedia policy. Google searches will reveal many self-published hits (books, blogs, own media), but there are very few, if any, secondary sources where independent sources are talking about him. The information in the article, therefore, cannot be properly verified and therefore also fails Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person, fails WP:AUTHOR. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does get substantial hits on Google but it could probably be because he is internet-savvy. Most links are to online versions and videos of his sermons. Could not find reliable third-party sources. No indication that his books are popular. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - ABEBooks shows 21 copies for sale representing 3 or 4 titles — not enough to indicate broad readership. Lack of reliable independent sources to constitute notability. No page on Conservapedia either, for what it's worth. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not a notable person, not every minister or missionary is notable. Also, twitter is not a reliable source for information. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An author of 25 books and articles may be notable. ABEbooks is probably not a reliable test: does it operate in India on a sufficient scale for this to be a good test? There seems to be a prjudice against article son Indian Christians on the basis that Christianity is a minor religion in that very populous country. However there are more Christians in India than people in some small countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2010 (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.