Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Walters

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. one of the keep votes was discounted as his only edits. Redwolf24 06:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Article about a scholar of Christianity. I've tried various searches on Google and much of this is unverifiable (also, it smells strongly of a vanity production). -- Hoary 02:25, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. freestylefrappe 02:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete has a broad resume but simply not notable enough in any one area. --TheMidnighters 02:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ONE relevant Google. I tagged it as a speedy. - Lucky 6.9 03:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Little too quick on the trigger finger, there, Lucky. The article does assert notability of a sort. android79 03:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • What did you search for? "Brent Walters" picked up about 600 hits for me. -Splash 04:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I got about that same number, but only the first one on the list seemed to have anything to do with him. I couldn't find anything else. - Lucky 6.9 17:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. android79 03:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, things like "Brent Walters" "Centre(er) for..." get no google hits at all, and just his name gets some 600, but not all are his. Would appear to fail the WP:PROF test. I wonder why his TV appearances haven't generated more note; normally that'd help him squeeze past the prof-test-Splash 04:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep, notable enough. Kappa 12:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, might be notable enough. Would change to an unqualified keep if references were added before end of VfD. JYolkowski // talk 23:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. A Google search for "Brent Walters" and "Nicene" yielded 17 hits and "Brent Walters" and "Didache" yielded 20. That's more than one, but still pretty low. However, his 1991 book on the Didache did have some favorable reviews and no negative ones that I saw. Given the apparent recognition he has within narrow focus of his scholarship (ante-Nicene), I'll give an article on him the benefit of the doubt, barely. The lack of details (name of his book and other publications, where he went to college, etc...) lead me to believe that this is not self-promotion, contrary to Hoary's conclusion. DS1953 04:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• keep. While a search on either Yahoo! or Google might not produce many noteworthy results, typing "Brent Walters" along with terms such as "Didache", "Church", "Christianity", "Nicene" will certainly result in more hits. Also, there were results when I typed "Brent Walters" and "radio" into a Yahoo! search. It quickly showed that he was in fact on a radio show as a guest. Lack of hits on search engines can likely be attributed to the obscurity of his scholarship, as mentioned above. (ie: how often does the term "Didache" even get mentioned in any church?). Nonetheless, a quick search of amazon.com quickly produced a title published by him along with some very positive reviews. He was also quoted in at least one other book as a scholar (once again, through an amazon.com search). --Wenwen2099 06:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 08:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or maybe mention in an article on Centre for Early Christian Studies. This, methinks, is vanity. -R. fiend 15:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete average professor CDC (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, borderline notable. Hall Monitor 17:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. 67.117.148.242 (talk · contribs) removed all but two delete votes from this discussion. android79 23:45, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: NN/vanity. --Ragib 23:20, 30 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.