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 delete. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 16:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Michael T. Griffith

Michael T. Griffith (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

No evidence they meet our notability criteria. I can see that he's published books and a couple are mentioned in reliable sources but with no discussion. Looking at the author's own edits to the article I can find him removing one review he didn't like, but that's not sufficient. [1] Doug Weller talk 12:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Some of Griffith's work (such as that associated with John F. Kennedy) seems to fall under fringe theorists issues. His work related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just seems to lack impact. Articles need to be built on secondary coverage of the subject, we are lacking that here. As mention John A. Tvednes' review of one of his works, which Griffith thinks is "shoddy" is the only review anyone seems to have come across. At the time the FARMS review functioned with multiple purposes, one of which was to warn Latter-day Saints against low quality, shoddy apologetics. Basically the review was trying to be comprehensive in a specific field, so it alone is not a good judge of importance or impact, Tvednes was quite clear the thought the work in question was not very worth while. True, you can become notable for down right mediocre and low quality work, but it takes more than one review to achieve that, and one review seems to be all we have. Griffith fails the general notability guidelines, he fails the notability guidelines for writers, and he fails the notability guidelines by a huge margin for academics. When your Amazon bio is mentioning you got a paper as an undergraduate published you clearly have not published works with academic impact. I was the original creator of this article, and the one who included the review that Griffith himself called "shoddy", which per the review is a better word for some of Griffith's work. I have since 2009 come to better understand Wikipedia notability guidelines, and in this case have to agree that Griffith is not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:49, 10 November 2020 (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.