Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jeremiah

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. - Mailer Diablo 03:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Jeremiah

edit

Pastor of a church, and tracts/books of unknown dubious publishing. Created by banned user who was likely a follow of the pastor. Notablity not asserted. WP:RS not offered. Arbusto 01:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we verify that from an independent source? Arbusto 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be a well sourced article that does establish notability. Not sure what is meant by, "Notability not asserted" when the article claims the subject is heard on 900 radio stations. Maybe needs more evidence or some editing done to the article but does seem notable and well sourced. Bagginator 03:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As ive got nothing better to do tonight i'm going to attempt to source the materials referenced in the article with external links to Amazon and such. Those which cannot be sourced I will edit out. Bagginator 03:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment Havn't finished the sourcing yet but i'm curious about the charge of "tracts/books of unkown dubious publishing". So far the book publishers i'm come across are W Publishing Group, Integrity Publishers, B C M Publications and DJ Publications. The dual claims of dubious publishing combined with sourcing not offered confuses me. Without the sourcing how was it evident the publishers were of dubious origin? Hope my sourcing effort clears some of this up. Bagginator 03:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some come from unknown publishers or no publishers. Getting a self published book sold on Amazon and B&N is very easy. Two examples 1) This one by David Jeremiah at Amazon.com is a new hardback for $6.00 with no publisher listed. 2) "DJ Publications" does not seem like a reputable publisher with 137 yahoo hits. Arbusto 05:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep About 48,000 Google hits, Amazon.com shows 127 books and audiotapes in various editions, dubiously published or not. Google shows various references to appearances on a large number of radio stations and mention by various religious commentators. Involved in some rather unfamiliar controversies (from my neck of the woods, as a total outsider) -- Light House Ministries accuses him of giving in to the temptations of "Contemplative Spirituality." [1] Seems to be a notable enough religious figure to be kept. --Shirahadasha 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shirahadasha. This guy is extensively published and followed. Shazbot85Talk 04:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pastor meets WP:BIO criteria and has written many notable books. User was not banned at the time of creation, so any deletion criteria does not apply here. --Terence Ong (T | C) 04:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject doesn't interest me, I suspect the books are of a low quality, but that's not the point. The article is NPOV, verifiable and verified, both of which are enough for inclusion. In addition, there's notability and also reasonable formatting (extenisve bibliography). Interlingua talk email 04:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • More Comments I edited the article in order to try and make it more agreeable to Arbusto. He doesn't like the lack of sourcing so I provided links to Amazon. He then reverted the edit. Is this appropriate? I commented on this further on the Discussion page of the article itself and on my talk page where Arbusto made me aware of his revert to my edit. Bagginator 06:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I wrote on your talk was:
I reverted the partial Amazon.com links [2] because wikipedia does not offer business to book retailors. Imagine if every single book on wikipedia followed this suit; all books would be linked to one business. However, adding in the ISBN number, publisher, city, year, and page numbers would be good. Arbusto 07:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't adding the link to Amazon provide the reader with the ISBN number, publisher, city and year? Bagginator 07:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it sure does. Adding a Barnes and Noble page with that info linked to every book could do it too. WP:ISNOT a collection of links nor is it used for advertising products.
Adding a whole collection of links to the article without writing an article would provide the reader information that could be in a article, but it would not be encyclopedic. It would just be a collection of links.
Sourcing an article means providing substantive claims with references. Not linking things for sale to a merchant. Arbusto 07:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really having trouble understanding your position here. Would you prefer I alternate links between Barnes and Noble and Amazon and whatever other online book source there is? The links added to the article are not for the purpose of selling books, they are for the purpose of satisfying your criticism. Adding links to Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other book sellers will satisfy your criticism of the article. Bagginator 07:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not link books bibliography to a place where books are sold. To verify the books in the Blibiography provide the reader with the ISBN number, publisher, city and year. For example, APA format.
My criticism on the AfD still stands. No one has added claims for notablity. Arbusto 07:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extremely well known evangelical author (not the least of which for his terrible toupee). His "Love worth finding" Sermons is nationally syndicated and broadcasted (On stations like the Bott Radio network). 205.157.110.11 07:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This "anon" user knows how to sign and use his only edits in the last day to vote for four afds- all which happened to be mine, and all that are created by Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) who is banned. Arbusto 10:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the strike since you have no reason to invalidate my vote. The admin who decides on the close can give whatever weight to my thoughts as he/she shall choose. At the risk of being uncivil, I will say that the logic you are using is quite infantile. If your mouse has the capability of moving to click on the user contribution tab you will see that I've commented on many AfD in the past. (And tend to vote delete more often then not) Just because yours happens to be the ones that tickle my fancy today does not mean that I'm targetting these AfD. My brother and parents were huge Fundies and while I don't share that persuasion, I'm mindful of those for and against the fundamentalist bent. So, these Afds peaked my interest--namely because they're so laughably notable and the theme of the AfDs so apparent. 205.157.110.11 10:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have readded the vote and comments that were improperly deleted by nominator Arbustoo (talk · contribs). The above user, 205.157.110.11, has voted on many RfDs that Arbustoo did not nominate and he has participated in other articles, so Arbustoo's claim in his edit summary is wrong. I don't have any opinion yet on this AfD, but I am concerned about Arbustoo's general editing history with regards to articles about preachers and his attitude that he takes with people that disagree with him. Vivaldi (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bring an RfC on. Wikistalking is not acceptable nor are your personal attacks (on other pages). I noticed you stopped editting when this anon. started posting on other pages about me. Arbusto 08:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I believe it's bad faith to accuse someone of wiki-stalking with no evidence. If you take the time to look at my contribution history (the AfD's with the ingredient listing for edit summaries are all mine) you will see that I comment on which ever AfD's tickle my fancy. The rash of anti-fundamentalist AfD on extremely well known preachers obviously caught my interest because of the very evident theme to the AfDs. That is not a crime and it's certainly not wiki-stalking. 205.157.110.11 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Note After some research I believe now that Arbusto wasn't accusing me of Wiki-stalking (his edit summaries when he was reverting my comments led me astray). I still believe his deletion of my comments were rash and uncivil, though.[reply]
Comment: An anon. who knows how to sign and what an RfC is. I suspect this is Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs), which has been stalking my contributions. Arbusto 08:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Shouldn't you assume good faith? Bagginator 08:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From an anon who knows how to sign and who's only actions are to vote in my AfDs? Arbusto 08:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An anon who has been around the block. Feel free to pursue this vendetta and goose chase. It will only lessen your credibility in this AfD and susequently in your conflict with Vivaldi. By the way for those interested in the ingredients, it's Mountain Dew and MDX 205.157.110.11 08:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Research Arbusto! Research! :p Like with the assumption that the subject of these AfD's are not notable, a little research would serve you a long way. 205.157.110.11 09:09, 5 September 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Jeremiah&oldid=1146365475"