Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. M. Clark
=[[R. M. Clark]]=
:{{la|R. M. Clark}} – (
:({{findsources|R. M. Clark}})
Prod contested by someone apparently assuming bad faith. This article seems to be about a non-notable academic. He was the first president of Society for Biblical Studies in India, but this doesn't seem to be a "major academic society" according to Criterion 6 of WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- The founding president of an inter-denominational academic society is surely notable. Contrary to the view expressed on another AFD, the Christian community (of 30 million) is only proportionately small, not absolutely. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
QuestionDelete. I'm not sure why the population comment -- the number of Christians in India is roughly comparable to the number in, say, France, but I'm not sure how that relates to this AfD. And I'm not sure if founding the SBSI is enough to make R. M. Clark notable. I guess it would depend on the significance of the society. Does anyone know how many members it has, or what impact it has had? -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
::Well, for that matter - there's nothing establishing notability on the Society for Biblical Studies in India page either. Its past President says it "has been active in the Indian Theological arena", but that's not an independent source. Anyway, I tagged the article. So we do need to be careful about seeing Clark as inheriting notability from the SBSI. StAnselm (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Changed to Delete, since I can find no non-Wikipedia mentions of this R. M. Clark. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::Further on this, the guidelines at WP:PROF are not totally clear, and I've added a note to its talk page to that effect. Criterion 6 talks about holding a major highest-level post at a "major academic society", while Note 13 says this criterion can be satisfied by being "president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc." Well, major is not the same as notable, and while the SBSI is notable (apparently) surely no-one could call it "major". Major societies would be the Evangelical Theological Society, the Society of Biblical Literature or the Catholic Biblical Association of America. Maybe an example of "notable but not major" would be the Adventist Theological Society. StAnselm (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The Society has been holding regular sessions for more than 40 years; that alone suggests it has some significance. And it has some outside references, such as [http://www.utcbangalore.in/envisioning_postcolonial_theologies.html]. Clark was reportedly its first president; however, I can find virtually nothing about Clark except Wikipedia and mirrors. Unless there is significant information out there in some other language, he does not qualify as notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 February 2010
::I can find a few things, but they are all for different R. M. Clarks (an engineer and a chemist). -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep User St. Anselm is on an India-bashing spree. Looks like the user is dictating which society is major or minor, or notable or non-notable. The User has zero knowledge of Biblical Scholarship in India or for that matter in third world countries. User trying to insert Deletion Tags in India-specific Theologians articles. If someone else places tags in articles which the user created (Australia-specific), the user tries to remove Prods.--Pavani (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
::*A cardinal Wikipedia rule is Assume good faith. St. Anselm has expressed some notability concerns, with respect to standard Wikipedia policy in WP:Notability, WP:Notability (people), and WP:Notability (academics). The purpose of this debate is for people, like yourself, who think the article should be kept, to explain why the subject is notable. Instead, you seem to be attacking St. Anselm personally and (if I understand you correctly) doing some retaliatory tagging. That may not be the best way of handling this issue. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
: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.