Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Stowell

Michael Stowell

Michael Stowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

There are maybe 20 mentions of Brighside Church, Michael Stowell, and/or the Blessing of the Bikes in local newspapers, but they are all routine coverage, and thus fail WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brightside Church. Dbratland (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Let me see... according to the discussion, it fits all the criteria for Wikepedia. Maybe a little religious discrimination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails anything I can find in WP:BIO. No WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Don't delete. These are not routine articles. These newspapers only do coverage on people of noteriety. They do not do routine articles. This all has been under review before and has passed all of the Wikipedia guidelines. Why are you attacking this person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete Please cut out the victim act. We don't think Pastor Stowell is non-notable because we here at Wikipedia are 97% Satanists, although we are, but rather because he is just plain non-notable i.e. no one says or writes anything about him except local newspapers, his own church, and things he writes himself. EEng (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Just kidding about the Satanism. Actually only maybe 60% of Wikipedia editors are Satanists. The rest are, of course, athiests. As to "these newspapers only do coverage on people of noteriety": that's absurd. By your reasoning, anyone who's ever been mentioned in a newspaper should have an article here. See WP:ROUTINE and WP:BASIC.

• Don't delete.Comment: Your reasoning is fallacious. News is news because it typically takes on topics and/or stories of interest to sell papers, not doing the routine. Unless, it's the weather. The newspaper does regular sports articles on pro atheletes but would they be called routine? But a pastor is routine? Most people I have read about on WIkipedia or no more notable than this guy. Why pick on his page? It has already been posted on here for over four or five years from what I can tell. It apparently has passed the guidelines. I think you are grabbing for straws, nitpicking. I don't think your are kidding about your other comments. I think you are displaying classic religious discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've clarified the tag on your second comment to remove the implication that a second person shares your views. My reasoning is sound -- it's my premises you dispute, but in fact my premises are correct and yours are incorrect: see WP:ARTICLEAGE, WP:ITSINTHENEWS, WP:OTHERSTUFF. On the lack of evidence of notability for this pastor in particular, see WP:BASIC (wherein please note the requirement for "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," as well as the depth-of-coverage provisions). And as to your certainty that he is being belittled as part of the larger masterplan of antireligious skulduggery here on Wikipedia, see WP:ADHOM. EEng (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't delete. -larger masterplan of antireligious skulduggery here on Wikipedia. Isn't that a funny way to say that you are not showing religious discrimination, when you really are. I'm not sure in England how the reporters decide what is routine and what isn't, but here in America it isn't routine reporting. It sounds like you are really grabbing for straws here to disqualify this article, when it has already been approved many times! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Stunned query Do you really know so little about Wikipedia that you think that, because my username is EEng, I am in England? 03:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The discussion about the church needs to be kept separate. It's possible that Brightside Church is notable but Michael Stowell isn't, or vice versa. I note that most of the newspaper articles about about local church events - I'm not sure if they say anything about Stowell himself. It's hard to take seriously an anonymous editor whose makes accusations of a "larger masterplan of antireligious skulduggery" [sic]. But in any case, I don't know what "it has already been approved many times" means. StAnselm (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. StAnselm (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable enough for an WP article. Being a pastor does not make you notable.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)