Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel B. Wallace

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel B. Wallace

Fails to meet WP:BIO. Possible vanity with no assertion of notablity. Arbusto 08:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - the assertions in the article appear to go some way to meeting the professor test; there are certainly assertions that Professor Wallace is a significant expert in his area and that he has published a well-known academic work. Perhaps if the strength of these claims could be established/contested more authoritatively it would be easier to make a decision. It's certainly worth considering the merits of the article, but I'm undecided at the minute. - Politepunk 08:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Changed to keep in light of RGTraynor's research about Prof. Wallace's Greek textbook. - Politepunk 18:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In what way? How is that a well known work? The critieria as follows:

• The person is regarded as an significant expert in their area by independent sources. No
• The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field. No
• The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality). No proof.
• The person has published a well-known or high quality academic work. No proof
• The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea. No
• The person is known for their involvement in significant events relating to their academic achievements. No
• The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student. No
• The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. No
  • Anyway according to the article he isn't even teaching right now. Arbusto 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. "No proof?" Google it for yourself and follow some of the many, many review links and the ones referencing its use in the classroom. I appreciate that you're trying to defend your AfD nomination, but I'm sure we can all agree that we're more interested in dispassionate research of whether or not an article meets the criteria. RGTraynor 20:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Having a book listed and reviewed at Amazon is not a big deal nor does it prove it is a well-known or high quality academic work. 500 google hits is not very many for a "well known" work. How about any peer reviews of his book? Reviews by experts in the linguistics field? Arbusto 23:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I take it interest in going through the evidence yourself? Alright. First off, that's 500 unique G-hits; the grand total Google hits is actually over 32,500. Here's the ones from a directed search of .edu sites alone [1]. RGTraynor 06:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep 500 unique hits. The link you supplied has the first two results from the seminary he graduated from and later taught at. Arbusto 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Third and fourth, anyway. What's your point? That the website with the most traffic about an academic is the one at the seminary at which he taught? I doubt there are many professors about whom that couldn't be said. RGTraynor 19:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The school with which he was associated has only been accredited since 1994 [2], but the Greek textbook he wrote looks legitimately notable - it's in the 7000s in Amazon sales rank, and a directed Google search turned up over 500 unique G-hits, a cursory glance at which turn up many reviews and evidence of classroom use. That meets the Professor Test all by itself. RGTraynor 16:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per RGtraynor. I've added some cats and removed some superfluous personal information (i.e. what he does in his spare time). The JPS 17:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete diploma-mill cruft.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup to remove unverifiable personal history and add sources. Fagstein 06:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per RGTraynor, an Amazon rank of 7,000 is quite decent. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Yeah. For a textbook. For a Greek grammar textbook. I'd say 7000 wasn't just decent. RGTraynor 13:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain Very strange creepy looking school. I'm sympathetic to Blnguyen comment. But it sounds like he may be notable as an author, but isn't notable as an academic. So the article ought to reflect this by focusing on his books. JeffBurdges 13:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, meets notability standards for published authors, which makes other issues irrelevant. Monicasdude 14:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep. Wallace is cited often on b-Greek (e.g., [3], [4]). He heads the The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts at DTS ([5]). He is a translator and the senior NT editor of the New English Translation of the bible ([6]). His intermediate grammar "is used in more than two-thirds of the nation’s schools that teach that subject," and he has written several books, as well as been published in number of scholarly, peer-reviewed journals, as well as in the more populist Christianity Today ([7]). And BTW, DTS is fully accredited. Calling it a "diploma-mill" is either asinine or extreemly biased. » MonkeeSage « 21:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - If his job is to be an academic, which it clearly is, then it's fair for the article to focus on that, even if he's notable due to some other field. Georgewilliamherbert 23:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --JBJ 20:44, 22 April 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.