Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel E. Waldron

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 Draftify. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel E. Waldron

[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)

Nightenbelle (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what's the rationale for deletion? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR, etc. I searched several of his books but did not find even a single RS review. (t · c) buidhe 19:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This needs to be considered as part of the nomination for Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, of which he is president and perhaps founder. If that article is kept (and the current votes suggest that it will be), there is a case for keeping this or at worst redirecting to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I agree with Peterkingiron. I came to add a page for Sam Waldron partly due to his role in the start of this seminary (there are two of other seminaries that use the same model IRBS and RBS). CBTS is interesting because it turned a congregational pastor mentoring center, at Heritage Baptist Church in Owensboro, in to a seminary. The local training center that became CBTS it seems was formed on the model provided by Albert N. Martin's Trinity Training Academy, now defunct after his retirement, that previously resided along side the [Trinity Classical School] at Trinity Baptist Church in Mountville, NJ. The previous Heritage Pastor, Ted Christman, and Sam Waldron were both connected to this program. Additional motivation for adding his page is due to his apparent role in shaping the theological viewpoint the above institutions embrace. The problem with citing this influence is that he is the author of much of the content thus it is not "independent". I am not connected to this group of folks but, looking at the group, the lines are clearly connected. He is the one who gives the "modern" theological defenses for many of the particulars that these three seminaries and their associated churches stand on: the regulative principle of the church, Plurality of Elders, a modern exposition of the London Baptist Confession of faith 1689 on which they all stand. It is a narrow (but growing) corner that these schools fit in: namely carrying out their belief that a to-be pastors's training in practical ministry should be done that person's pastors and thus, the role of the seminary is to provide what a local church's pastors cannot: academic rigor. Given the small subset of schools who actually do this, once a predominant "modern" defense of attending principles is made, others don't need to write another "modern" defense. Which means there is not a lot to cite on the importance of the individual's contribution to the movement that is forming. Kyle.Mullaney (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't evaluate this page for deletion as the nom provided no rationale for deletion and with that it's nearly impossible to argue for keep or delete. Are we arguing under WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF? If WP:NPROF he qualifies by being president of his seminary, although that is a rather tenuous keep. My larger point is there is not real way to discuss this properly as nomination is unclear. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 04:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Draftify Whether or not the nominator said so, the rationale for deletion is obvious: he meets none of the relevant notability criteria. They could be either WP:PROF nor WP:author nor WP:ANYBIO. We can evaluate all of them. The head of a small seminary is not the head of a major institution intended by WP:PROF. As author, there's an inadequately sourced assertion that he wrote a standard book in his religious denomination. For anybio, there's no substantial coverage. But the assetions in the discussion above would indicate he might be notable--if they were in the article. I suggest that the simplest course would be to draftify so they can be added. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per DGG, since the subject may meet WP:CLERGY. Failing that, redirect to Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. Miniapolis 03:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Miniapolis and DGG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:14, 7 December 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.