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. v/r - TP 23:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Di Sabatino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Biography is largely based on primary sources and sources dealing with the documentaries of this individual. Little biographical information exists about the guy in RS's and the article appears to be being used as a platform to disparage him due to his work in a controversial area. Errant ^(chat!) 20:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet the notability requirements of a creative professional (specifically 1, 3, 4.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozgod (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Subject has communicated a desire for the article to be deleted as well. In the eyes of the subject, the material is mostly designed to disparage the subject. It uses out-of-date articles referenced on a website designed to malign the subject and his creation of a documentary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles referenced were discovered by me using various google search indices eg scholar, book, news. They were not found on any other site and in fact cannot be found there. While they refer to a period several years ago, they enhance his reputation as an historian of the Jesus Movement and contributor in the area of Christian worship, with no attempt to malign or disparage the subject. I'm puzzled by the subject's apparent reluctance for these articles to be listed.smjwalsh (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While there may be a marginal claim to notability here, given that the subject of the article wants it deleted and there may be BLP issues it's probably better to delete. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Keep Smjwalsh has put forth some compelling arguments for notability. He has also requested time to restore previously existing content that he feels does a better job of conveying that information, which is a very reasonable request. The article should remain. The notability of the subject as a creative professional is questionable, but there is some level of interest in him based on his connection to Larry Norman. Suggest redirecting to an appropriate section of that article.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DDS is notable independent of Larry Norman. His 1994 annotated bibliography on the Jesus Movement would alone establish his notability as the premier historian of the Jesus Movement. His other creative efforts supplement that original notability. It would be unfair to see him as a footnote to the Larry Norman story, although as a major critic of Norman that could warrant his inclusion.smjwalsh (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just because subject requests deletion should not be a factor in decision to keep or otherwise. It is presumed efforts to vandalise article were by subject. Much of the article was from RS, non-controversial, and definitely NPOV. Content can be dealt with in usual way by article editors. Subject has written the authoritative book on Jesus movement, which is frequently quoted in subjects related to this topic. That should be sufficient to establish notability. His 2 docos add to his notability, as does articles he wrote, and interviews given in various RS. Article was not created to disparage subject. ONly recent reference to one website could be regarded as in any way disparaging, but nothing in the article is POV, or violates BLP. Subject may not wish for his past as Christian writer to be featured, but there's nothing controversial there.smjwalsh (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, click on Google Scholar and you will see DDS referenced 26 times. You will also see his 1994 bibliography cited 12 times by other scholars. In Google Books you will see him referenced on cited over 100 times in by a large number of authors.smjwalsh (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with User:Qrsdogg- between the marginal notability, BLP battleground issues, and subject's request to delete, this should be deleted. First Light (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know subject is requesting deletion? Where is the request from the subject? I have no reason to doubt Walter's word, in fact I would vouch for his veracity, but it is bad policy to accept such a request through a third party. Further, even if the subject requests deletion, would it be good policy to automatically accede to such a request. Would we do so for someone of unquestioned notability? Of course not. As regards BLP issues. There is a mechanism in WP that works well for material that may libel a LP. It has already worked in relation to this article. Why delete an article because of a one sentence rreference to a website that makes accusations against the subject? That would be a prime example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Finally, the only real issue raised to date is the questionable notability of the subject. This is paramount. If DDS is not notable, then it automatically follows that the article should be deleted. I believe I have established notability in my earlier comments, however I recognise that these same points are not made in the article currently. It did so when the article was created. Allow me the time to strengthen the notability of the subject in the lede.smjwalsh (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the deletion because there seems to be no biographical detail relating to this guy; sure he has written some notable material, but I can't find any in-depth coverage of his life to satisfy notability. By arguing keep you are arguing this is the case; so can you back up the !vote? --Errant ^(chat!) 08:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you added considered one of the pre-eminent historians of the Jesus People Movement; certainly if this view is widely held it would establish him as a notable individual. Do you have a source for it though? None of the sources in the article support such a general suggestion. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make some very good points here and above. I have changed my recommendation to "Keep".--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The request from the subject was made in private correspondence. Shall I ask the subject to support the request? I can't guarantee that he will post here, but I can make the request. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such requests (living persons asking for an article about them to be deleted) are formally made at Wikipedia:OTRS. This type of request is not uncommon. I think if you forwarded the email to OTRS, it would make it 'official'—though I'm assuming good faith, and IMO it is already legitimate for the sake of discussion here. First Light (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2011 (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.