Deletion of Craig Bartholomew

Comment: StAnselm, it is not open and shut. In terms of  read that in the General notes section of , it's mentioned as a guideline and not a policy; the exception it gives is the other way around, but certainly the reverse can also be true. Happening to meet one criterion does help, but ''ultimately it depends on the number of reliable sources on the subject''. He doesn't fulfill this, doesn't pass the professor test. Also, in terms of sources, you should know the answer to your question, seeing how you've started/edited the bulk of the "reputable publishers" he has been featured in. It suggests , either that you work at RC or are affiliated with it or him. Either way, the bottom line is that yes, to answer your question, he has written a lot. But no, that in itself does not make him notable. Certainly not enough to fulfill  Listing ''every'' publication he has to his name doesn't make a difference. Some of the sources are from presses that in themselves are questioned to be notable. Others are obscure enough not to have any secondary coverage. Moreover, for someone who has so much out there, you'd think we'd be able to find many reliable, independent sources, and there aren't any to be found. Lastly, yes, he does have a title and that is great but as other editors have pointed out per language in "''Major'' institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability." RC is ''not'' a major institution
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:COI||WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: as failing  by not having coverage in independent third party sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I nominated the article because the ''bulk'' of the publications are  This was made clear in a previous edit by JFHjr and reverted back without reason. This was strange, as he had a point. An Amazon search isn't enough to establish notability. The peacockery just makes the article look more like a public relations statement, really, and didn't impact my decision to think it ought to be '''deleted'''. No, the long list of vanity press sources made it all suspect, and him failing the Professor Test are the reasons,  just makes it messy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPSPS||WP:RESUME)

Comment: I have a feeling this nomination has been made in reaction to the peacockery present in the article, and as part of a cleanup of Redeemer University College related articles. The thing is, Bartholomew clearly passes Criterion 5 of , in that he holds a named chair at a "major institution of higher education". Now, this word "major" has been inserted to eliminate tiny and/or unaccredited institutions - but RUC is neither. Bartholomew is a significant figure in the field of Biblical hermeneutics. His h-index is 9, which may seem quite low, but theologians don't tend to rate as highly on that scale
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: There seems to be a significant misunderstanding here about the nature of  and its relationship with .  is a "fall back position" - subjects who fails  may still be notable under . Of course  is a "guideline" rather than a ''policy'', but then so is . Furthermore, it says that "for the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details," so the issue of third-party coverage is not a problem here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: Not only does he pass  #5, and probably #1, but he also probably passes #8, as a former editor of the ''Journal of Theological Interpretation''. Now, JTI was not "well established" at the time (he was the inaugural editor), but it comes from a reputable publisher, and has a significant worldcat presence. Remember: Bartholomew's field is particularly biblical hermeneutics, rather than the wider field of biblical studies. In this narrower field (which the journal represents), he is one of the foremost scholars
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: due to the paucity of non-vanity press and non-self-published sources.  Also note that in the General notes section of , it's mentioned as a guideline and not a policy; the exception it gives is the other way around, but certainly the reverse can also be true.  Happening to meet one criterion does help, but ultimately it depends on the number of reliable sources on the subject; I'm not seeing enough to support an article, so I'm voting delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: as per StAnselm (I hope this isn't considered disruptive). Cites are reasonably good for theology to give a pass of rof#C1. Publication list is puffy and could be removed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)