Deletion of Dean Aaron Roberts

Comment: after relisting this discussion I contacted the original author to raise a few concerns and we ended up discussing the article in more general terms. The article has now been |userfied at
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Userfication (WP:UFY)

Comment: I would like to see this article kept on the basis that the award is given by a well known Christian organisation and, as they are notable, gives credibility and notability to the award and to those who receive it. A quick google search of the name reveals lots of links to primary sources (the blogger in question, but also to secondary sources backing up the information on this article and those claims held on the blogger's personal blog. I contest the view that it fails  and would say otherwise. It does pass  and fulfils criteria of . There are a lot of other articles on Wikipedia about individuals who aren't referenced as well as this article, nor are the person(s) of some other articles as well searched on Google. If a strong keep is contested, it may be worth modifying the article to emphasise that the notability of the person is due to a blogging achievement rather than anything else, in this case as an associate pastor. Special:Contributions/92.19.219.41|92.19.219.41
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N||WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: as nominator. No further sources have been offered except for http://www.trystanowainhughes.com/#/compassion-quest-reviews/4574224298 which I would classify as trivial, merely a link from a book promotional page back to a review on the blog of the person under discussion. I would question if even that was independent as it is a review of his "former lecturer". The further links to the new media awards are merely passing mentions. The IP:92.19.219.41 seems to be proposing that as the organisation is notable (which it is) then the awards are notable. This is questionable especially as no proof of such notability is offered. Then they state "...anyone who receives it is notable." which in my opinion is plain wrong. I'd cite  as part of "Arguments to avoid": "''notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities.''". The IPs argument actually involves a double level of inheritance none of which is supported by sources unconnected with the subject or more than trivial in nature
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)