Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Ahlquist

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Dale Ahlquist}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Dale Ahlquist}})

Subject does not seem to meet any of the qualifications in WP:ACADEMIC. Perhaps meets WP:BASIC but I don't think so; he has been interviewed as an expert on G.K. Chesterton, but that's not really significant coverage on Ahlquist himself.

Additionally, article was created by User:AmChestertonSoc, likely undisclosed paid editing; article overall is written like a WP:RESUME or WP:PROMOTION, and relies on primary sourcing. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Minnesota. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep is going to pass WP:Author. There's also some extensive (negative) writing about him[https://www.ncronline.org/news/group-promoting-author-gk-chesterton-faces-turmoil-over-right-wing-connections] Jahaza (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Good catch on that article - I'm not sure why that didn't pop up in my Google News search. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:

• Comment: I tried my hand at cleaning up some of the promotional writing (could still do some more probably). And I would like clarification on how he meets WP:AUTHOR Moritoriko (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete there's fewer book reviews than I expected to find. Jahaza (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep, seems to meet NPROF/NAUTHOR/GNG. I found [https://www.newspapers.com/article/star-tribune/171942151/ one profile] that counts towards sigcov, the NCR article linked above by {{u|Jahaza}} is another one, and so far [https://www.jstor.org/stable/26815999 one paragraph] about a chapter he contributed to an edited work, [https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/10.3366/ink.2024.0235 1], [https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/ink.2022.0158 2], [https://www.pdcnet.org/chesterton/content/chesterton_2022_0048_0003_0469_0474 3], [https://www.proquest.com/docview/2296538381?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals 4], [https://www.pdcnet.org/chesterton/content/chesterton_2006_0032_40606_0437_0440 5], [https://www.pdcnet.org/chesterton/content/chesterton_2020_0046_0001_0141_0144 6], [https://archive.org/details/sim_social-justice-review_january-decemeber-2004_95_index/page/n1/mode/2up?q=dale+ahlquist 7] reviews of books he wrote/edited probably add up to be another element. I'm landing at 'weak' because it feels like the reviews are a bit of a walled garden (they are from two journals), but they seem reliable, and there's definitely enough to write a substantive article here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep - the worst of the cruft had been removed, but just barely squeezed by. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.