Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Kennedy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:57, 8 September 2011

Lawrence Kennedy

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

Article was originally nominated for speedy deletion as it did not contain any non-inherited notability claims. The article creator made an argument on the talk page for notability, so I agreed to remove the speedy and start an AfD. Unfortunately my research has not turned up significant reliable source coverage to establish notability for the article subject. The bulk of the citations on the current article are primary sources linked directly to organizations the subject is involved in, and do not establish notability. Other notability claims include, "He is friends with David Yonggi Cho" and "He is the father of Texas philanthropist and politician Lance Kennedy and a descendant of Republic of Texas politician John J. Kennedy." and "He sits on the board of governors of the S. Daniel Abraham Center of Strategic Dialogue" and that he performed a wedding for Chuck Norris. All of these claims are inherited notability claims (giving the benefit of the doubt that the subjects he is affiliated with are even notable - which is not entirely clear in some cases). I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage to establish the notability of these claims, with the one exception of perhaps being mentioned in Norris' autobiography (but I have not pulled the paper version to verify). Even if that is verified, it still is a rather weak claim of notability unless reported in a reliable secondary source. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: It did include non-inherited nobility claims, you just fail to read them as they do not support your view. This is not a subjective position. There are quite a few significant mentions of the subject to establish notability as per reliable source. The bulk of the references are direct references from the subject; this is clear if one took the time to look at the articles instead of pontificating about them. The mentions of the subject's involvement and relationships with notable induviduals are referenced in significant publications (i.e. David Yonggi Cho) and included major contributions by the subject. All of these claims are non-inherited notability claims (the subjects he is affiliated with are even notable). The mentioning of the subject in Christianity Today, his leadership of a large and notable religious organization (one just has to search for Church on the Rock in Google to see the size and scope). His mentioning in Norris' autobiography is found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=KNfwZWSnCSQC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=lawrence+kennedy+chuck+norris&source=bl&ots=joNpXIKbUF&sig=hmh5MpfGS-fy8BTrso7WiSaS1tQ&hl=en&ei=pnNeToLfBZKltwfc9fmlCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false. In addition, the subject has founded a large charitable organization with many references in significant, independent sources, which ConcernedVancouverite has failed to mention. In my humble opinion, ConcernedVancouverite has not taken the time to look at the articles provided and is instead trying to justify his original claim of non-notoriety. Theseus1776 (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition he is mentioned on Hartford Seminary's list of American megachurches: http://hirr.hartsem.edu/cgi-bin/mega/db.pl?db=default&uid=default&view_records=1&ID=*&sb=1 Theseus1776 (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Some level of notability has been established by the sources provided, but I am undecided as to notaable Kennedy is. I would argue that the article is kept because the sources do seem to giv at least some level of notability. My persona decision could be swayed either way - I'd want to listen to further opinions and see whether any additional sources can be found. ItsZippy (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of course I have taken a look at the sources. I wouldn't have nominated if I hadn't. Please remember to assume good faith. Thank you for the direct link to the Chuck Norris autobiography. That has helped me to realize that the Norris source is just passing references as well. The primary mention is on pages 201-202 and it basically just confirms that Pastor Kennedy did the wedding ceremony. It does not focus on Kennedy at all, and does little to establish notability. It makes a bit of mention that the pre-marital council from Kennedy was helping working through emotional baggage. That is fairly run of the mill for a pre-marital council, and does not appear to be particularly notable. Most pre-marital council provides exactly that. The fact that it is to someone notable, like Norris, does not add notability to this very routine act for a pastor. Regarding the sources for the organization he founded - those focus on the organization, not him. Perhaps an article on the organization would be appropriate based upon those sources. But it is not clear that they add much to his notability as an individual. Once again, associating with notable individuals (such as your claim above of association with David Cho) does not confer notability, unless the association itself has been the subject of significant reliable source coverage. In this case it does not appear so. If you would like to help keep the article, please find reliable secondary sources in major news outlets, etc. instead of primary sources. It will go a long way towards improving the article and the possibility of keeping it. I have tried to locate such sources, but have been unable to do so. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-Comment - I did assume good faith. The reference isn't passing and is notable. The subject is also featured in the centerfold of the book. You may need to find a paper copy for that one. It was "run of the mill," except that the one being counseled is Chuck Norris and he felt it necessary to mention the subject in his book. It does add notability. You want the subject to be mentioned in reputable and notable periodicals: what is more notable than this reference? But I digress since this is not the crux of my argument; the subject has founded large organizations, been mentioned in multiple periodicals and sites for his charitable work, is mentioned in a major U.S. seminary's list of mega-church pastors. The reference to David Cho shows that they worked together and that Cho hosted and event with Kennedy. I am trying to improve the article and said, FROM THE BEGINNING that I am looking for additional references. There is sufficient proof that Kennedy is notable and it does no good for Wikipedia to delete it.Theseus1776 (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete - The references do not do enough to me to suggest notability. For notability, Lawrence Kennedy needs to be the primary focus of the source. The ones given mention him in passing - the primary focus is an organisation or another person. If there exists a source which is primarily about Kennedy, then I would vote to keep it. As there is not, it seems he is not notable enough. ItsZippy (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as president of a denomination of 3000 churches. That makes him the equivalent of a bishop, and therefore notable. St Anselm (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you expand on your logic here as to how such a position as president of a virtual denomination is notable without significant reliable source reporting of such notability? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do a Google search:http://www.google.com/search?q=church+on+the+rock&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theseus1776 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have failed to mention his charitable works which mention him explicitly as the organization's founder. I think you are violating your "good faith" when you fail to do so.Theseus1776 (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe you are misunderstanding my question to StAnselm. I wasn't questioning if he is involved with the church. I was questioning how that is notable by Wikipedia standards - which would require reliable source coverage of that fact. I trust that StAnselm understands the question from a Wikipedia perspective though, and will respond when chance arises, as StAnselm has a strong history of editing in the religion area of Wikipedia and likely will have some additional logic which they can share about the notability claim. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bishops, (or Roman Catholic bishops at least) are now included at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Part of it may be the analogy with WP:POLITICIAN - if the mayor of a city of 100,000 is notable, then one would expect a leader of a denomination of 300,000 (??) to be notable also. But I dispute ConcernedVancouverite's claim that "no significant reliable source reports such notability" - the article includes a number of independent reliable sources. St Anselm (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for the explanation of your logic. But I note that the common outcomes discussion says, "The bishops of major denominations are usually notable. Roman Catholic Bishops are generally found to be notable. The bishops of other major denominations, such as the Anglican Communion, may also be considered notable on a case-by-case basis." It is not clear that this case falls under that definition as it has yet to be established that a virtual denomination is a major denomination. I question your claim that there are reliable secondary sources in the article that state he is the president of Church of the Rock, to establish the notability of that claim. I believe he is president of Church of the Rock, for sure. But it is still unclear to me that there is significant reliable source coverage to establish that position as being notable for Wikipedia. If someone could provide an article or two in a reliable secondary source that talks about his role as president of that organization as a focus of the article that would go a long way in convincing me. But I haven't been able to turn up such a source. The current sources referenced regarding that claim are the info pages of his church and of the organization. Those are primary sources and do not establish notability for the claim, even though they verify the claim. Note WP:NRVE which states, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability...No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with ConcernedVancourverite here. While it may be true that Kennedy holds a senior or significant position in his church, that is not the grounds by which notability on Wikipedia is established. We need to determine whether or not it is significant that Kennedy holds such a position. This significance would need to be demonstrated by third-party sources paying specific attention to the fact. None which do have yet been provided. If someone could provide a reliable, third-party source in which Kennedy is the primary subject, then I would be willing to change my position. ItsZippy (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have an agenda ConcernedVancouverite and I don't like it. There is a variety of articles about the subject, including his direct founding of an organization which has clothed 12,000 children since 1989. He is mentioned multiple times in multiple articles, yet you time and and time again ignore comments to this effect. You instead focus on one singular aspect of the article and make claims that "because it is not notable here, he is not notable anywhere." This is ridiculous.129.119.190.89 (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against accusing people of having an agenda. You may disagree, but please do assume good faith. We are all here to improve the quality of Wikipedia, we just disagree about how that might be done. I would also like to point out that at no point did anyone say that Kennedy is not notable anywhere; rather, he is not notable enough, according to out notability guidelines, for Wikipedia. I do not dispute that Kennedy has done some very good work - that is not the topic of debate. In order for Kennedy to be notable enough for Wikipedia, our guidelines suggest that he must be significantly covered in reliable, third-party sources. This means that he must be a primary focus in a source and the sources must be reliable and not affiliated in any way with the person in question.

Let me look at each source individually. The first source is just a list of churches. Kennedy is mentioned in passing, as the pastor of a church - the source does not attribute additional any notability to him. The second source is the North Church website. This is affiliated with Kennedy, so cannot be used to attribute notability. The third source, the Church on the Rocks website, is again affiliated with Kennedy, so cannot allocate notability. The fourth source I have no access to; however, unless it is about Kennedy, it will not give him notability. The fifth source is a link to a site which does not work. The sixth source is, again, affiliated with Kennedy. The seventh source is an article about the Clothe A Child organisation and the involvement of a man called John Hammond. Kennedy's name is mentioned once to establish context - it does not give notability to Kennedy. The eighth source is a local news report about Cloth a Child. Firstly, as a local news report, it is not very deep coverage, so would struggle to meet notability guidelines. In any case, the article is about Clothe A Child, not about Kennedy - Kennedy's name is there, again, just to provide context. The ninth source, again, is affiliated with Kennedy so cannot provide notability. The tenth source, as before, is about Clothe A Child and just mentions Kennedy to provide context. The eleventh source is exactly the same as the eighth, just on a different website. The twelfth source is the strongest provided, but still only mentions Kennedy in passing. The article is not about Kennedy, it is about the event. Kennedy is briefly mentioned on a few occasions because he has a role in it. The notability, if any, if the event's. I cannot access the thirteenth source; see what I put for the fourth. The fourteenth and fifteenth sources are about Chuck Norris. Kennedy is mentioned because he took the wedding of Chuck Norris. If we had articles on ever pastor, priest and vicar who took the weddings of notable people, we'd have thousands of articles about people who's only claim to fame is that. This does not, therefore, constitute notability.

I hope that helps. Feel free to disagree with any of the analysis I've given but, if you do, please reason with me and explain why. I've given you detailed reasoning behind my rejection of each source, so I would like to see the same thought behind any attempts to refute my arguments. If I've made any errors, please let me know. Thanks. ItsZippy^{(talk • Contributions)} 13:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ItsZippy has gone through and highlighted the reasoning very effectively, and consistently with my comments above. So I won't waste additional space repeating the same points. I will just ask one clarification question though to Anon editor 129.119.190.89. Are you Theseus1776? Or are you a separate editor? It would be helpful to know for the reviewing admin when they close this AfD. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see how he's anything like a bishop; his only claim to fame was converting Chuck Norris; finding reliable sources will be difficult with such a common name. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're a self proclaimed polymath. You have no credibility IMP.Theseus1776 (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 :'''Comment''' - ItsZippy has gone through and highlighted the reasoning very effectively, and consistently with my comments above.  So I won't waste additional space repeating the same points.  I will just ask one clarification question though to Anon editor 129.119.190.89.  Are you Theseus1776?  Or are you a separate editor?  It would be helpful to know for the reviewing admin when they close this AfD.  [[User:ConcernedVancouverite|ConcernedVancouverite]] ([[User talk:ConcernedVancouverite|talk]]) 15:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' - I don't see how he's anything like a bishop; his only claim to fame was converting [[Chuck Norris]]; finding reliable sources will be difficult with such a common name. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 20:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
+::You're a self proclaimed polymath. You have no credibility IMP.[[User:Theseus1776|Theseus1776]] ([[User talk:Theseus1776|talk]]) 18:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)