Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Ice (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Sandstein 13:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ice

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This theologian might have a lot of hits on Google and speak at Bible conferences, but I don't think his academic achievements reach WP:PROF standards. The previous AfD is eye-opening in how differently AFDs were decided in 2006. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing anything that would suggest Ice meets GNG, just brief mentions/quotes (The Atlantic, Beliefnet). The closest he gets to meeting WP:NACADEMIC would be having a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" (pre-tribulation rapture), but independent reliable sources demonstrating that don't seem to exist. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 11:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although there is absolutely no sign of WP:NPROF, it looks like there are now plenty of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, even on what looks to me like a fringe topic. I cut down the CV-like list of books of uncertain impact to the reviewed ones, and otherwise edited towards MOS. Genericusername57 previously did the harder work of finding reviews. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep His first book (coauthored with H. Wayne House) had significant impact; according to Neuhaus[1], it was the "first book-length critique" of Christian reconstructionism, and "warmly endorsed by leading Evangelicals". I don't think that his writing on pre-tribulationism has seen the same response (though this isn't an area I'm particularly familiar with); but there are probably enough book reviews overall to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Cheers, gnu 57 19:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as multiple reliable sources book reviews references have been added that show a pass of WP:NAUTHOR in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not think there are any serious BLP issues: there are some unverified items, but none likely to be libelous. He is clearly an academic and has written several books, which have been reviewed in specialist journals. His theological views may differ from mine, but they are probably widely held ones among evangelicals, so that the views are not FRINGE ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- His works have garnered significant critical attention, reviews published in several independent journals. Passes WP:NAUTHOR. --Ashley yoursmile! 08:20, 4 March 2021 (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.