RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Glynn Harrison 2018
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Glynn Harrison | Result: Keep[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Delete[edit]
Poorly written and unlikely to be expanded on. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)- Per Grammarcommie. --san (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename) 00:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Per all.-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep[edit]
- I think it's missional and has enough content to be its own article. I'm not content with the red links, but I don't see what's particularly wrong about this article aside from being short and being short for a long time. --It's-a me,
🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- @LeftyGreenMario While possibly missional (some debate about the validity of the claims was brought up shortly after the page's creation) it has none the less been neglected for quite some time, to the point where it lacks even a navbar. If it could be brought up to some level of formatting quality, a few more sources cited, and the redlinks either removed or transformed to wpl templates I might be persuaded to change my vote. However, the lack of even a Wikipedia article on such a supposedly controversial figure still leaves me deeply troubled. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think minor formatting problems is quite enough to delete an article. The lack of a Wikipedia article does indicate a lack of interest and resources that is needed to expand the article, and that's problematic in the future. But why not keep the article short as long as the documentation is to the best ability? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 05:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- @LeftyGreenMario As I said above, I do not believe that the article documenting the subject to the best of it's ability. The information is appears to be outdated, and the formatting leaves much to be desired. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think minor formatting problems is quite enough to delete an article. The lack of a Wikipedia article does indicate a lack of interest and resources that is needed to expand the article, and that's problematic in the future. But why not keep the article short as long as the documentation is to the best ability? --It's-a me,
- @LeftyGreenMario While possibly missional (some debate about the validity of the claims was brought up shortly after the page's creation) it has none the less been neglected for quite some time, to the point where it lacks even a navbar. If it could be brought up to some level of formatting quality, a few more sources cited, and the redlinks either removed or transformed to wpl templates I might be persuaded to change my vote. However, the lack of even a Wikipedia article on such a supposedly controversial figure still leaves me deeply troubled. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Missional. He's been covered in some depth in the Guardian[1] and there's articles by him and lengthy discussion of his work on evangelical Christian blogs and media.[2][3][4][5][6][7] His book The Big Ego Trip attacking self-help culture might also be missional.[8][9] He's written/co-written creepy-sounding and very missional texts about religion and homosexuality such as "Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction: Issues of Pastoral and Counselling Support".[10] The fact that he doesn't have a Wikipedia article seems a good reason for keeping; although he seems to meet Wikipedia's notability standards for academics and I don't know if there was an article deleted there. Deleting because it doesn't have an info box or you don't like the formatting is trivial. It's true that it requires work, but this is a wiki, so there's nothing wrong with that. --Gospatric (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm convinced, though I would advise someone other than myself expand on this article using the sources above, since I am a terrible writer. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
