Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachery Tims

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 delete. Courcelles 17:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zachery Tims

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

Recreated article about a locally notable pastor who had an affair. The article seems mainly to exist as a WP:Coatrack to document his affair.

Previous article was deleted after expired {{prod}}, reason was "A pastor who had an affair. Not notable." The only additional info is about his recent death. Toddst1 (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. One question to ask is, was he notable before his death? This, a somewhat random range before his death, suggests he wasn't. This (outside Google News) is better, but reliable sources are harder to find here and, as nominator suggested, there may be no more than an affair. Another question to ask is how widespread coverage of his death is and whether anything comes to light to make this more than a single event. That remains to be seen; it may, it may not. I haven't seen it yet, hence my "weak" delete. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in reliable sources here and here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first isn't worth anything, since the total related content is this: "As Zachary Tims once said ..." The second is from the magazine (in book format, apparently) Charisma and Christianity, which is described (per Google, for the website http://www.charismamag.com/) as something that "provides news, analysis, prophetic commentary and teachings for charismatic and Pentecostal Christians." I'd have to say that fails the reliable sources test.-- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also mentioned in the huffington post here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.62.226 (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — 173.228.62.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete - extremely limited notability and coverage in reliable externals. Notable in his own back yard only. - perhaps a comment about him in a parent article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A passing name-drop in one "reference", a bit of coverage in a Charismatic Christian walled garden, and a WP:BLP1E in the HuffPo do not a notable figure create. This isn't Jimmy Swaggart, it's some relatively small-time pastor who, like most of the blowhards, was a blow-sniffing, stripper-chasing hypocrite. Even the Orlando Sentinel coverage alluded to in the HuffPo post still doesn't elevate this guy beyond BLP1E. Badger Drink (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Not that important in himself, but probably significant as part of the general trend of excessive religiosity in America. However, the article as it currently exists is not worth much from any perspective. Though it may be hard to handle any aspect of these topics with a really neutral and objective perspective, they are still significant, from both historic and political perspectives, and if he was a major figure, then he deserves more than a few footnote mentions. I think the largest higher-level topic is probably the religious challenge against the separation of church and state, and there should be an article on that topic, which should link to this article as an example of one side or the other. (I have no idea what particular doctrines he preached, but I still think his preaching must fit into some part of the picture.) Shanen (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "the general trend of excessive religiosity in America" (if it exists) or '"religious challenge against the separation of church and state" have to do with this local preacher or with whether to keep the article? Toddst1 (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The guy had no notability outside of Florida while alive; his peculiar death gave him 15 minutes of fame nationally; not enough for a Wikipedia article. (And speaking of peculiar, one of the "see also" links is Jesus Christ. Huh?) --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I'm evaluating an article under NOT NEWS here, I'm usually trying to justify keeping it. I can't find any significant justification here, and I see no other reason for notability DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 5 September 2011 (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.