Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Grudem

: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. Nom's first edits appear to be to nominate this article. Bad faith. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

=[[Wayne Grudem]]=

Not a notable author or theologian.

:{{la|Wayne Grudem}}

Strong keep. [http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11529062/page1/ seems] [http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2005-01-17-new-bible_x.htm USA Today], [http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week825/feature.html pbs], [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-82630478.html a few religious news sources] [http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11529062/page1/ and] the [http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-15667921_ITM Journal of Psychology and Theology] diagree with you about notability. Please do a quick google search before you nominate something for AfD. Also, this AfD seems broken; I'm not sure how to fix such things. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep For the reasons above, with the addition of my personal experience. Grudem is a well known Evangelical scholar. Leon 21:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep - notable author as above. His Systematic Theology is widely used (as systematics texts go, of course). --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think I'm detecting some snow in this sector. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep - per above. As theologians go, he's probably about the most famous in UK evangelical circles at least. See your point about snow, too. TJ (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep as above, the WP:SNOW has fallen. The article needs work and better inline references, not deletion. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Let it snow. I was amazed when I saw this nom. StAnselm (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep the article, delete the quotes. Quotes belong on Wikiquote, not here. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2008 (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.