![]() | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was delete. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I actually have not put any of my own thoughts or feelings into the blp that i am aware, but have indeed cited others' opinions. (For example, I personally prefer philosophical Buddhism and find Abrahamic religions light on believability, but I'd hoped my ideological stance would not seeped into my treatment of Hardy this student and sometimes proponent of Mormonism.) That said, User:StartTerminal, I'm open to any improvements.
Could it be that your observation is slightly itself skewed, owing to the fact that apologetics has become more and more ghettoized in the academy? -- I'll check out e.g. C. S. Lewis's Wikibio and return.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 00:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment: This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
? startTerminal
Comment: Needs to meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR and does not appear to meet PROF at this point. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The subject is a notable author-scholar within the subdiscipline of B. of M. studies. (The article itself demonstrates how he passes wp:PROF #1 and #9. Here's some citations--> J. Frederick. "The Bible, Mormon Scripture, and the Rhetoric of Allusivity - 9781611479065 - Rowman & Littlefield". Rowman.com. Retrieved 2018-04-19."Google Scholar". Scholar.google.com. 1919-11-30. Retrieved 2018-04-19."Journal of Book of Mormon Studies | All Journals | Brigham Young University". Scholarsarchive.byu.edu. Retrieved 2018-04-19.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment: See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Hardy Using B.M. must be a Mormon in thing - as a non-Mormon I find it confusing jargon. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Good input, user:Legacypac. It can be changed. I'd perhaps made it up and have no idea what the established shorthand might be, if there is one.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
An AfD does not hold in perpetuity. As evidence of a perhaps blatant ghettoization of religion studies on WP, there seems to be a systemic pattern of AfD closings' failure to discount mere reflex !voting that neglects to specify any argumentation at all, while giving the starkly specious argumentation of say a single !voter who does, with the coup de gras being even to bypass the basic premise of closings that lack of consensus within an AfD's argumentation defaults to keep. (That is: the contention from the 2011 AfD that the subject didn't "pass wp:PROF" was not a WP:GOODARG. (1) wp:PROF iself says when an prospective subject is an academic writer whose works have been the subject of multiple reviews, the person is considered notable. (2) wp:PROF itself says it does not supersede wp:GNG, which in turn says that a prospective subject need pass the hurdle of its having received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The creator is free to move the page when they are ready. AfC is optional for established editors. Legacypac ( talk) 20:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was delete. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I actually have not put any of my own thoughts or feelings into the blp that i am aware, but have indeed cited others' opinions. (For example, I personally prefer philosophical Buddhism and find Abrahamic religions light on believability, but I'd hoped my ideological stance would not seeped into my treatment of Hardy this student and sometimes proponent of Mormonism.) That said, User:StartTerminal, I'm open to any improvements.
Could it be that your observation is slightly itself skewed, owing to the fact that apologetics has become more and more ghettoized in the academy? -- I'll check out e.g. C. S. Lewis's Wikibio and return.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 00:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment: This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
? startTerminal
Comment: Needs to meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR and does not appear to meet PROF at this point. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The subject is a notable author-scholar within the subdiscipline of B. of M. studies. (The article itself demonstrates how he passes wp:PROF #1 and #9. Here's some citations--> J. Frederick. "The Bible, Mormon Scripture, and the Rhetoric of Allusivity - 9781611479065 - Rowman & Littlefield". Rowman.com. Retrieved 2018-04-19."Google Scholar". Scholar.google.com. 1919-11-30. Retrieved 2018-04-19."Journal of Book of Mormon Studies | All Journals | Brigham Young University". Scholarsarchive.byu.edu. Retrieved 2018-04-19.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment: See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Hardy Using B.M. must be a Mormon in thing - as a non-Mormon I find it confusing jargon. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Good input, user:Legacypac. It can be changed. I'd perhaps made it up and have no idea what the established shorthand might be, if there is one.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
An AfD does not hold in perpetuity. As evidence of a perhaps blatant ghettoization of religion studies on WP, there seems to be a systemic pattern of AfD closings' failure to discount mere reflex !voting that neglects to specify any argumentation at all, while giving the starkly specious argumentation of say a single !voter who does, with the coup de gras being even to bypass the basic premise of closings that lack of consensus within an AfD's argumentation defaults to keep. (That is: the contention from the 2011 AfD that the subject didn't "pass wp:PROF" was not a WP:GOODARG. (1) wp:PROF iself says when an prospective subject is an academic writer whose works have been the subject of multiple reviews, the person is considered notable. (2) wp:PROF itself says it does not supersede wp:GNG, which in turn says that a prospective subject need pass the hurdle of its having received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The creator is free to move the page when they are ready. AfC is optional for established editors. Legacypac ( talk) 20:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)