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.
Not a single reliable source, let alone the multiple, primary coverage from reliable sources that would be required to have an article. Self-published or minor press books are not notable either. It's basically a resume. Subject is minor Satanism promoter, so would need FRINGE policy coverage as well if article remains.
DreamGuy (
talk) 15:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
He's not a Satanism promoter, surely. That's not what the article says. Let's not make things worse, here.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
He promotes it to fight against something that doesn't exist. What would you call it?
DreamGuy (
talk) 00:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not only is the nominator's commentary completely unnecessary and simply asking for controversy, my searches simply found nothing to suggest better yet aside from some links at News, Books and browser searches. Notifying
DGG who lists to be notified of Christianity subjects.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Hello? Just stating the facts. Your added commentary is unnecessary.
DreamGuy (
talk) 00:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 19:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 01:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- We normally keep articles on bishops of major denominations. Should that be extended to the senior state officers of other denominations? If so, we should keep him.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Sources Here
[3] the
Washington Post describes a blog post of his in some detail; here:
[4]The Christian Century discusses a position he took; here: [] thttp://www.christianpost.com/news/backlash-over-muslim-seminary-student-sparks-emotional-apology-from-paige-patterson-at-sbc-121446/he
Christian Post does; and again:
[5] - all of these articles do more than quote and describe him, they discuss his position on political or theological issues at some length. And there are more. All it takes is to actually do a search and actually look at the articles that come up. People unwilling to do that should not bring articles to AFD, and should not iVote. Clearly, the page needs improvement. But equally clear is the fact that the Nom did not read the news stories cited in the article before bringing this to AFD (if he had, he could not have characterized Burleson as a "Satanism promoter" or as "fringe").
WP:TROUT to Nom. There ought, in fact, to be some stronger reprimand to Nom for bringing this article to AFD with that degree of inaccurate characterization. TROUT also to SisterTwister for her assertion that she ran searches and "found nothing". It is time to close this AFD that NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED with a KEEP.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 16:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Hmm, I'm not sure so I'll wait to see what the others say. BTW, somehow (and this has happened with other pings), I never got this one and only noticed it because I watchlisted this AfD.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep in light of multiple RS coverage found and listed above.
Jclemens (
talk) 09:09, 6 December 2015 (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.
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.
Not a single reliable source, let alone the multiple, primary coverage from reliable sources that would be required to have an article. Self-published or minor press books are not notable either. It's basically a resume. Subject is minor Satanism promoter, so would need FRINGE policy coverage as well if article remains.
DreamGuy (
talk) 15:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
He's not a Satanism promoter, surely. That's not what the article says. Let's not make things worse, here.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
He promotes it to fight against something that doesn't exist. What would you call it?
DreamGuy (
talk) 00:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not only is the nominator's commentary completely unnecessary and simply asking for controversy, my searches simply found nothing to suggest better yet aside from some links at News, Books and browser searches. Notifying
DGG who lists to be notified of Christianity subjects.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Hello? Just stating the facts. Your added commentary is unnecessary.
DreamGuy (
talk) 00:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 19:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 01:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- We normally keep articles on bishops of major denominations. Should that be extended to the senior state officers of other denominations? If so, we should keep him.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Sources Here
[3] the
Washington Post describes a blog post of his in some detail; here:
[4]The Christian Century discusses a position he took; here: [] thttp://www.christianpost.com/news/backlash-over-muslim-seminary-student-sparks-emotional-apology-from-paige-patterson-at-sbc-121446/he
Christian Post does; and again:
[5] - all of these articles do more than quote and describe him, they discuss his position on political or theological issues at some length. And there are more. All it takes is to actually do a search and actually look at the articles that come up. People unwilling to do that should not bring articles to AFD, and should not iVote. Clearly, the page needs improvement. But equally clear is the fact that the Nom did not read the news stories cited in the article before bringing this to AFD (if he had, he could not have characterized Burleson as a "Satanism promoter" or as "fringe").
WP:TROUT to Nom. There ought, in fact, to be some stronger reprimand to Nom for bringing this article to AFD with that degree of inaccurate characterization. TROUT also to SisterTwister for her assertion that she ran searches and "found nothing". It is time to close this AFD that NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED with a KEEP.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 16:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Hmm, I'm not sure so I'll wait to see what the others say. BTW, somehow (and this has happened with other pings), I never got this one and only noticed it because I watchlisted this AfD.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep in light of multiple RS coverage found and listed above.
Jclemens (
talk) 09:09, 6 December 2015 (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.