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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Michael Dowd

Michael Dowd (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The sources are very poor: a few WP:INTERVIEWS (least niche outlet is San Francisco Gate, I think: [1]) , some press-release like annoucements that he will give a talk somewhere, and a bunch of references to his webpages and other WP:SPS. I am not seeing any independent discussion of his life or significance in GBooks/Scholar, a few mentions in passing, pretty much all related to his book Thank God for Evolution (which may be notable, although it is currently a very poor stub; not seeing any awards for it or for the author, although it did get some media coverage and citations since). If the book is notable (which needs to be shown to save that article), maybe a summary of his bio could be merged there. Anyway, given the subject has coverage pretty much only in the context of this single book, WP:ONEVENT applies too. PS. I will try to improve the book article shortly, as of now it looks like this. PPS. While not directly related to the notability, it is worth noting the article has been created and significantly written by presumably the subject themselves, see MBDowd ( talk · contribs). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep -- WP has a tendency to eliminate any views that do not conform to the consensus and to rubbish creationists. There are some claims in this article that need more verification, which is important for BLP articles, but subject to that it is not so bad that it ought to be deleted. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Peterkingiron, I am afraid what you are saying is that WP:ITSIMPORTANT... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep his most notable book is held in 720 libraries as shown here which indicates he has at least one major work, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - while library holdings are often used as direct evidence of impact for WP:NACADEMIC, for WP:NAUTHOR the relevant criteria reads The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work...or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Since the relevant work seems more a work intended for a general audience than academic scholarship per se, I think we still need to see evidence of significant coverage. MarginalCost ( talk) 00:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I missed that the sources to support notability are found at the book's article itself, rather than Dowd's own page. I think the coverage there - particularly Geoscientist (by the Geological Society of London) and Theology and Science, in conjunction with Atlantic's evidence of library holdings meet the WP:NAUTHOR requirements that The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work...or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. We can debate whether TGfE should be merged here, but I think there's enough content to justify an article for Dowd. MarginalCost ( talk) 01:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • MarginalCost, His book may be notable, per WP:NBOOK. I don't think authorship of one notable book however is enough to give him NAUTHOR pass. I think that if someone is notable only for a single work, their bio can be summarized in article on that work. Once they have two or more notable works, then they likely pass NAUTHOR and it makes more sense anyway to have a central entry for them. (Also, it is not yet very clear if his book is indeed notable enough to even merit a stand-alone article). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 3 May 2021 (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.