Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Sungenis

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 no consensus.  Sandstein  20:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sungenis (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)

I believe this article fails WP:BIO. Sungenis is mainly active in promoting his own self-published books and going on promotional tours. He has a somewhat large internet presence, but no presence in reliable independent sources that are published by third parties. I think this lack of independent sources mean he probably does not deserve a Wikipedia article. jps (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete him! (per nom, etc.) DocumentError (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I count seven independent secondary sources in the citations currently provided, though a search through Google Books and Proquest news archive leaves me little doubt that this article could in time be expanded and improved considerably. His name comes up fairly regularly, often in connection with some of his more controversial views but also as part of exchanges with other active apologists. As far as general notability guidelines go, I believe this individual clearly passes.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Mainly for the reasons given by CurtisNaito. As a personal disclaimer, I'm not a regular editor, but was looking for information on this man and found the page usefull (altough I guess that won't really count :P). He seems to be quite prominent in the geocentrism 'debate' and there is also a documentary scheduled to be released April 2014 based on his writings ("The Principle", or something like that).WijzeWillem (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable author on the Sola Scriptura from a Roman Catholic apologist perspective.[1] Has also entered into the creationism debate, among other things. As a side note it is the most "objective" (secular) article about him available anywhere, the alternatives are bios like this at Creation Wiki which of course contains no criticism. It would be a loss if the article was deleted though Sungenis would probably be delighted. -- GreenC 21:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. CurtisNaito makes a clear case. The article certainly stands to be improved. Reducing the biographical material would seem to be appropriate. But deleting goes too far. An advocate of pseudoscience and arguable anti-Semite with any significant following is somebody people have reason to look for commonly circulated information about. pdbowman 01:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdbowman (talk • contribs)

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.