Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Acuff

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 delete. Ironholds (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Acuff

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable blogger/author lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Acuff seems to fall under #2 & #3 in WP:CREATIVE Creative Professionals criteria as his blog and first book have been discussed in other forums by multiple independent parties. Also, his blog is noteworthy due to its uniqueness within a community and culture that has no other significant internal satirical voice. His contribution is noteworthy in the Christian community much like Max Lucado, another primary contemporary Christian author. --Thetrevr (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Neither 2 or 3 apply. He has neither originated "a significant new concept, theory or technique," or created "or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work." He has merely capitalized on an existing concept and his work is not significant. ttonyb (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe that is true. But I suppose my question comes from what constitutes "significance." While the blog is a capitalization on an existing concept, what's unique is his contribution through the blog to the Christian community. This is a significant population and his name and work are both significant in that culture. I believe his career is at the point where people are looking into who he is because his name is continuing to gain notoriety. --Thetrevr (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A blog and a few minor nn books are hardly a significant body of work. Regardless, sorry to say, a "contribution through the blog to the Christian community," is not criteria in WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE to establish notability. ttonyb (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Fair enough. I just figured since some of the people on this list had dedicated pages, it seemed appropriate that he would have the same. Either way, thanks for hearing me out on it. --Thetrevr (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – My pleasure and don't give up hope. There may be others that disagree with me and support the inclusion. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Usual Caveats apply, however; it's possible that this individual will become more notable with time and exposure. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation in the future if he gains more coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The most significant coverage I could find was this blog on AOL from a Birmingham news writer. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.