 | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 June 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Notability & sources
editCurrently the sourcing for the article is:
- A 1 paragraph 'News Brief' obituary
- An online copy of a book he wrote &
- A piece quoting him extensively on the Waco siege.
This does not amount to significant third-party coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Hrafn. I expected the aricle to attract more interest when I started it. I will work on adding some more sourced material. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Will get back to it soon. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Loading up an article with (multiple) sources for the bare existence of his books really isn't appropriate. I'll be moving these into Bibliography & EL sections shortly. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- His book Why Conservative Churches Are Growing seems to have been quite influential in the field of sociological study of religion. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- That claim is WP:SYNTH, and the claim that it "is often mentioned in works on the history and sociology of relligion in the United States" appears an irrelevance (and thus merely an excuse to ref-spam). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've actually never read any of his books. This one is often mentioned by sources as being fairly important in the history of religious studies, and seems to be one of the things Kelley is most known for. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then cite them for what the sources say about his views, not for the book's bare existence! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- The sources discuss the book's influence, not just mention its existence. This article is about Mr. Kelley, not his book.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- "mentioned" = merely verifying the book's bare existence. If they "discuss the book's influence" then state what they say about this 'influence'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
That would be better in an article on the book itself.That's true, but really I can't come up with a way to express this in a sentence or two. I will get back later. Have to go to work now. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- "mentioned" = merely verifying the book's bare existence. If they "discuss the book's influence" then state what they say about this 'influence'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- The sources discuss the book's influence, not just mention its existence. This article is about Mr. Kelley, not his book.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then cite them for what the sources say about his views, not for the book's bare existence! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've actually never read any of his books. This one is often mentioned by sources as being fairly important in the history of religious studies, and seems to be one of the things Kelley is most known for. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- That claim is WP:SYNTH, and the claim that it "is often mentioned in works on the history and sociology of relligion in the United States" appears an irrelevance (and thus merely an excuse to ref-spam). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Article title
editI remember him being referred to as "Dean M. Kelley". Why was the article moved to his full name? If he is more commonly known by "Dean M. Kelley", that would seem to be the preferable title. (Edward R. Murrow, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John B. Watson, Susan B. Anthony, William F. Buckley, Jr., etc.) -Exucmember (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)