Michael Raiter: Sources are mainly primary.  LibStar ( talk ) 05:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity ,  and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 05:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Pakistan ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep -- This issue should not be the quality of the sources, but whether the subject is notable.  He was for 5 years the principle of a Bible College.  Bible colleges (in US seminaries) are often small independent academic institutions, but they ought not to be judged merely by size in comparison with institutions teaching a wider range of subjects.  Three of his predecessors have articles, but others do not.  Not being in Australia or Vanutu (where he founded another), I am not qualified to judge his notability. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 12:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Still need sources to establish notability. LibStar ( talk ) 02:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per Peterkingiron. This is someone who may be considered notable despite not clearing GNG's conventions. I'm reading this subject in the way we generally give leeway to bishops in significant denominations. Sourcing confirms that this person does exist and did hold some fairly notable positions. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 04:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of the positions held confer inherent notability. LibStar ( talk ) 16:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : It's possible that Stirrings of the Soul may meet WP:NBOOK given it won an award, though online RS reviews seem thin. ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 05:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- As far as I can see, the subject fails WP:BIO and I don't see any other notability criteria that are met.  I don't see that WP:BOOK is met.  A reading of the award process (self-nomination and an entry fee required) and its criteria does not convey obvious notability.  Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib ( talk ) 02:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - he's a well-known Anglican evangelist and preacher in Australia, was principal of a Bible College in Australia too which has notability in other countries.  If there's no consensus to keep then please merge to Melbourne School of Theology to preserve the history of the article.  Cavepavonem ( talk ) 10:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "well-known Anglican evangelist and preacher in Australia, was principal of a Bible College" are not criteria for notability.  LibStar ( talk ) 11:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The only applicable notability guideline is GNG, it requires in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and we do not have that.  All the blathering in earlier contributions to this discussion about how we should ignore the guidelines and consider him notable because he's notable is content-free, circular, and should be disregarded.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist to consider Merge option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep He's discussed in a few textbooks [35] , [36] , with a quote in this one [37] .  For such a small field of study, he's somewhat well-known.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus