Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Hindson

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 no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 15:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Hindson

I was cleaning this up and the more I cleaned it up the more I doubted it. It is the sole work of User:Heavenonearth, who has no other contributions, and conveniently forgot to mention that most of the "several doctoral degrees" are from unaccredited institutions, or that the one that wasn't was from an institution accredited only to first professional degree level. The "more than twnenty books" drops to two when you go to Amazon, and the sales ranks are 350,000 and 650,000 respectively (although it is a "proper" publisher, albeit one which restricts itself to evangelical Christian output - reviewing the authors list, nons leapt out at me as names I recognise but it's a couple of decades since I was active in the evangelical movement). It has been edited by Gastrich and socks, which does not necessarily make it vanispamcruftisement but does raise a red flag. Slightly over 400 relevant unique Googles, maybe a bit less as I didn't check more than a small sample to see if it was the same Ed Hindson. In the end I think this is a puff piece inflating the importance of the subject; I call WP:BLP. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as vanitycryftisment. Non-notable, I suspect this is a hoax. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. PJM 12:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously meets notability standards, even though he may be the evangelical world's answer to Kadee Strickland. Current host of widely syndicated, long-running television show. [1] [2] The odds are that his books push him over the notability standard, too, especially the one cowritten with Jerry Falwell. Notability in a market Wikipedians look down on is still notability. Monicasdude 15:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't look down on it, I an an active Christian and own evangelical books. On the other hand, I see a lot of evangelical "personalities" as vainglorious. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. --kingboyk 23:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. A person with a television program and at least two books to his credit is notable enough for mine. Gets a number of mentions in books about fundamentalism in Google Books [3] where he is described as one of two of Falwell's righthand men. 23 results in Google scholar [4]. Hindson appears to be both notable and verifiable. Capitalistroadster 01:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• OK, you want to add that? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Monicasdude and Capitalistroadster. Kappa 01:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. per Monicasdude. I really don't understand the bias against undereducated people and television shows or books that happen to take a particular slant. Isn't that the very definition of POV? I'm voting weak because he is barely notable enough in my opinion. Logophile 13:34, 7 February 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.