Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert M. Wolters (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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albert M. Wolters (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)

Don't think this meets WP:PROF Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no showing of scholarly impact to pass Academic criteria 1, no other criteria for academics or GNG even approached.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google Scholar shows almost 400 cites for his book Creation Regained. This is very high for theology, and demonstrates that he has had a "significant impact in his scholarly discipline". Thus, WP:PROF #1 is clearly met. See also the arguments in the previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert M. Wolters (second nomination). StAnselm (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I only see 292 cites, but that is enough for theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The first two results are different editions of the same book, so presumably they should be added together. StAnselm (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article did not contain any of Wolters's significant work on the book of Zechariah, which has now been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.138.149 (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Although I freely admit I am not fully across theology & theologists, this subject appears to meet Criterion 4 of WP:NACADEMIC; evidenced by the (relatively) large number of citations of his works. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:NACADEMIC. Theologians are always difficult but I think he passes pretty easily. As mentioned earlier, his book, "Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview" is currently show 293 citations for the 2005 version (none for the 1985 version that I can find) which is a pretty decent number in Theology. Additionally, WorldCat is showing his books in a number of prominent Divinity schools such as Boston University School of Theology, Yale University, Harvard University Divinity School Library, Duke University, University of Notre Dame, etc. CBS527^Talk 01:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2017 (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.