Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Cormode

Scott Cormode

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Scott Cormode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of encyclopedic notability for this academic administrator. BD2412 T 00:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Religion, and California. BD2412 T 00:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agreed with proposer, does not meet any notability requirements. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails all notability requirements. My own WP:BEFORE did not provide any useful sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Patre23 (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Being the editor of the Journal of Religious Leadership is probably not enough for WP:PROF criterion 8. Being the Hugh De Pree Professor of Leadership Development might be enough to meet criterion 5. He's published a few books, but they don't seem to have been widely reviewed (this was the only journal review I could find of either, but I may have missed some). Josh Milburn (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are also a few interviews, for instance [1] and [2]. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while his books haven't been reviewed a lot, his work does seem to be cited quite a bit and I think it's reasonable to say he passes WP:NACADEMIC 5. I found two additional journal reviews of one of his books other than the one Josh Milburn found, as well as a review of a book chapter and a journal article talking about the impact of some of his work. Jahaza (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Between what I said above and what Jahaza has found, I think there's enough here. The article has been slightly improved, including incorporating some of the sources identified above. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Passes WP:NAUTHOR per the reviews added to the article and listed here.4meter4 (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NPROF #5 is met by his named chair, and Fuller is no minor fringe seminary. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement among participants on whether or not this article subject can pass WP:NPROF or WP:HEY.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]