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. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. G. George[edit]

P. G. George (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

There is a lot of puffery in this article, but nothing that indicates the subject passes either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. He was Principal of a seminary, but there is nothing that indicates it is the "major academic institution" described in WP:PROF #6. StAnselm (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to have had only a small impact on the world of scholarship. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep -- I agree there is a good deal of puff, which needs pruning out, but he sounds like a major figure in an indigenous denomination. I accept that theological schools tend to be small, because they are typically not part of a multi-disciplinary university, but that does not make them insignificant. Dean and Principal are higher than professor (using that term in the British sense. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a waak keep,but we need to compensate for our difficulty in finding sources on this subject.I did some cleanup. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- per DGG's argument on difficulty of finding sources and Peterkingiron's notion of the level of Dean and Principal. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - With the clean-up efforts, no longer has such a high degree of promotionalism. Barely meets, but does meet, notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 10 March 2016 (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.