Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Jay Roberts

Cecil Jay Roberts

Cecil Jay Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

His ministry work does not appear notable, and his musical work does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC. As such, the individual does not appear to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article at this time DP 01:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Notability (music):

• Wikipedia:Notability "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Cecil_Jay_Roberts
• Wikipedia:Notability (people) Meets neither the basic nor additional criteria
• Wikipedia:Notability (music) Meets none of the criteria

At best, Wikipedia:Too soon JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: Per JoeSperrazza. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Can the article be moved back to AfC? It was moved by the article creator Cowhen1966 before completing the process. Moving it back would allow the article to be worked on. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 02:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Procedurally, I don't know. However, there does seem to be a pretty obvious WP:COI for the author regarding this article. See [1]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither do I, but there's no precedent, so I don't see why this can't be withdrawn, the page CSDed as housekeeping (G6 (pending a discussion here)) and place it back into AfC. Maybe we should ask an Admin first, though. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

On another thought, can't we vote here to get that rationale? MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

We could, I guess. I would NOT propose to put it back into AFC, rather to simply Delete, for these reasons:

1.It is pretty obviously an autobiography.

2.There were many instances of the sources (those that were available for review) not supporting the text in the article. I corrected or elided that text, as appropriate. At best, there's a serious WP:CIR problem.

3.The WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of the author (not the least of which was tagging an article as a Review that he found an editor who had edited this article had contributed to.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I was just making a contribution to the article after I also found issues with his article! It was certainly not personal? RegardsCowhen1966 (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

4.Finally, Cowhen1966 asserts that he did not originate the article ([2] "I did not edit the beginning of the article. Check the history!"), although the history ([3]) says otherwise ([4]). He's either confused or dissembling. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete or return to AfC per other users. Agreed, it's still a delete for me. MrScorch6200 (talk | 86.129.66.211 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)ctrb) 02:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Return to AfC. Lots of work needed, but I haven't seen a solid reason to delete yet.--Auric talk 02:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Return to AfC - I think it needs a lot work, but with more independent reliable sources I can see the article being notable. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 02:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I will be brief because whoever will make the final decision will I am sure look at all the facts, correspondence between parties etc. these can be found on both the talk page for the article created (Cecil Jay Roberts)and my own talkpage. There are also loads of contributors history, etc. tracing right back to when the article was created. It is important to mention that an editor by the name Wgolf removed the current template at the very beginning. But has since then been subject to countless edits etc. the article has lost shape and from as a result of these actions some of which have left me slightly overwhelmed. The question of notability and verifiability were nitially addressed with regards to the subject's presence on Christian tv. Etc. books by Sutherland et al. have all been used as references among other things. I have sought to address the individual's notability spanning across various decades right from birth till date. I believe as it stands now, All relevant sources have been edited out. All traces of his role as a pastor and tele-evangelist have also been edited out. This was due to numerous threats and edits flying from all quarters save a few helpers. I do not know why this has been my experience but if the original article is to be retrieved I believe a clearer picture will be seen. Again, contrary to Sperrazza's comments, I do not have a conflict of interest in this article. I am just a perfectionist and this would have been the first of a series of articles that I was going to seek to write about. Within the Christian arena there is something called the gospel of grace and when i first searched on wilikepedia there was no article. Wikipedia then asked if I could create one. This is what made me start to research current pastors who are talking about it. I was therefore going to research others as well. But I could not talk about this individual without making mention of other things that he is known for past and present. I also thought I did a good job through this individual by linking the article to other notable people from Ghana ranging from politicians, to education to culture etc, And here in the uk this pastor seems to have spearheaded this move via his tele-evangelist programme. I also checked Faith TV for the individual's name on their listings but could not find it. That is why I quoted a website that talked about the program. The reason why I was not overly concerned and looked for another source is because there are other Christian networks who do not provide all of their programme schedule. That does not mean that I have conflict of interest. As for the personal comments by Mr Scorch about me being ...? I will not hold it against him. I do however hold my hand out to you Sinteku. I now know what you meant when you said to move the article. Sorry if I misunderstood! Anyway, I cannot promise you that I will be the next J K Rawlings, but what I do know is that I am here to make Wikipedia a place where we can all be proud of. So yes, Sinteku, why not? Let's get back to bing Wikipedians! ThanksCowhen1966 (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Cowhen1966 (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Cowhen1966: Wait, what personal comments did I make against you? Above you said: "As for the personal comments by Mr Scorch about me being ...? I will not hold it against him." MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 03:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You called me confused and having a battleground behaviourCowhen1966 (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Cowhen1966: No I did't. Give me a minute. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That was JoeSperrazza, I merely agreed. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's ok. It really doesn't matter honestly! No hard feelingsCowhen1966 (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's true! I was just making sure I didn't offend anybody. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Return to AfC or Userfy. I think this has the potential to be a worthwhile article and I think the merits and potential of the article should be considered separate from the actions of editors who have worked on it. As has been mentioned to Cowhen1966 several times, editing and deletion decisions should not be personalized. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that! But I am sure you can appreciate I did not at all expect this kind of reception. Over the years, I too have read many articles on Wikipedia some good and some not so good. I came on here as a bit of a secret admirer for the editors on here who I think do an amazing job. So you can understand my shock and horror when things started getting personal. Trust me when I say, all I wanted was to contribute to a resource that I have used countless times myself.Cowhen1966 (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

But nothing has ever gotten personal. Saying you're "confused" about Wikipedia is not personal - it's an evaluation of your edits. Saying you're showing battleground behaviour is an evaluation of your edits. This isn't about YOU DP 12:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No Dangerous Panda, the editor who made the comment did not make it clear what I was confused about. Yes he may have touched on my edit history but the statement as a whole could be interpreted both ways. One, that I may be a confused individual, and two refers to what you were talking about. Again you've made another assertion. The editor in question did not make it clear that he was talking about my editorial abilities or lack of, he just said the article should be deleted based on battleground behaviour. This can be taken personally even if sections of Wikipedia guide and policies are pasted on page responses to make a point. More often than not, this could lead to things being used out of context. Anyone can find something on Wikipedia to support their point but we MUST keep it in context to what the real issue or subject of discussion is about.Cowhen1966 (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment There's nothing that prevents me from closing down this AFD early, and sending back to WP:AFC. However, if it goes back to AFC, there's a few key things: first, anyone with WP:COI should not be editing the draft directly - they should be proposing changes on the AFC's talkpage, including proper sourcing; second, if within about 2 months nobody can make it into a viable article, someone should tag it for deletion, rather than letting it go stale; third, the only person who should move this back into articlespace should be someone with extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policies; fourth, people have to stop taking this personally DP 13:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Until it is proven that the single editor of this article has a conflict of interest, then such statements become problematic. So far, only assertions have been made. Even to the extent of naming the editor of this article as Mr Roberts himself. Now, that to me is libellous at best and defamatory to Mr Roberts. Auto biographical articles not allowed on Wikipedia. Surely, if as editors we are trying to prevent libel, then why are we committing the same offence? As for the people taking it personal, again there is no such evidence.Cowhen1966 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Remove from article space, somehow. Moving it elsewhere to be worked on would be fine, but I wonder if it's ultimately a waste of time. From what I have seen so far, I am not convinced that any proper sources even exist to support such an article. Maybe they really are out there, but it's suspicious. One editor claims to have books that nobody else can see, or even verify the existence of. I believe the editor using those books as sources has even said they do not have ISBNs. So, if these books do exist, they were not published in any normal sense. Usable sources are absolutely key- without them, there can be no article. Some of the sources that looked like a news website at first glance, turned out to be PR pieces from the subject's own publicist. I see lots of self-promotion by the subject of the article, but I see little coverage in independent sources. Friday (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a sort of promo piece to me. The only things soundly referenced aren't notable by Wikipedia standards, and I have worries about the use of that photo of a Daily Graphic page as being a copyvio (of the paper, not the photographer). There's nothing that strikes me as being notable enough to warrant moving back to AfC, but I have no objection to this being done. I just can't see it being worth the effort. Peridon (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom.--Malerooster (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete or Send back to AfC. Per Friday, this needs to be removed from article space, whatever the method. On the basis of the references provided (and I can find nothing better), the subject quite comprehensively fails the inclusion criteria for biographies in general. Nor does it pass any of the alternative criteria for musicians. My own view is that sending it to AfC is probably a waste of time for the article's creator, but if they want to see if they can make a viable article out of this, they should be given the chance to try. Note that if this hadn't started out at AfC, I would have said simply delete. Look at the sources: mentions of his participation in youth/school activities in Ghana, recent articles written by his publicist, 2 books (or articles?) lacking page numbers with no evidence whatsoever of having been published by an independent publisher or author and which do not appear to be held in any library, and one reference which does not mention him at all. If this person is active now and is notable, there would be substantial coverage out there that hasn't been written by the subject himself or his agents. There simply isn't. Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Clear self-promotion from a (by our standards) non-notable person. The level of self-promotion is such that I wouldn't even recommend it going back to AfC, but in any case it can't stay in article space. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A MESSAGE CAME TROUGH TO MY NOTIFICATIONS THAT JOE ESPERAZZ HAS REVERTED ALL THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE PUT ON HERE. THESE WERE INDEPTH ANSWERS ADDRESSING EVERY ISSUE HERE. 86.129.66.211 (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have NOT edited anyone's response I HAVE SIMPLY RESPONDED TO STATEMENTS MADE ON HERE. Not to worry Joe they were my words so I can put them back on here again. YOU CAN REVERT AS MANY TIMES AS YOU LIKE. I WILL MAKE MY POINTCowhen1966 (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't shout. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And yes, you did modify my comment with this edit, which seems to be a mistake. Just re-add your comment without reverting my recent edit. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 03:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This comment [5] by another editor on the author's talk page is the best response possible to the author's complaints:

Let me reiterate, at no point were your comments removed from the discussion. They are all still there.

Let's focus on the merits or lack thereof of this article, please. On a related note, while I do think we should give new editors a break, the level of personal attacks from the author (here, my talk page, at WP:ANI, his talk page, and others' talk pages) is reaching an actionable level. To avoid causing more angst, I won't leave a WP:NPA template on the user's talk page. Other's have warned him without a template. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No they are NOT (emphasis not anger) still here. I am Going to start a NEW series of replies in response to the article. This time, I will log in and I HOPE that my comments will be left alone. If you have not reverted any of my comments on here then you need not worry. The comments that are here are a fraction of what I put up here. One technical glitch is understandable if that is indeed the case. But another will begin to raise questions. My history has the names of every revert that has been done. I am going to start a lengthy and in depth response to why I think this article should not be deleted. I TRUST it'll be allowed to stay on here for everyone to see. Thank you. Again if you have not reverted any responses that I have put up here then you need not worry and if I have WRONGLY accused anyone of reverting then accept my apologies. Now, let my responses begin.Cowhen1966 (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please provide diffs showing which of your comments have been deleted or retract your accusations. Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not know how to perform this action but like I have already said receive my apology if you have not reverted anything. I received a notification saying that you have actioned some sort of reversion. At this point it does not really matter because I am going to start all over again. This time, I will also provide a backup on my page and leave a message on here for the administrator who will look at the evidence. So far, my own page has been the safest place. I think by now, it is quite obvious that I am not a Computer guru but I think I can read a simple notification message when it says that someone has reverted my work. For the last time if I have accused you wrongly accept my sincere apologies and I mean that. I was only responding to a notification I received saying that you had reverted something on this page in relation to a series of responses I had put up here. This message came up immediately after I pressed the save button to save my responses. In my experience, when there is an edit conflict the message I receive is that your message was not saved because of an edit conflict. This is the first time I had received a message about my work being reverted by somebody. I didn't even know what that meant till I put a question in Wikipedia and got the answer. Again, none of this really matters anymore because I am going to start afresh in the light of new evidence and this page is really meant to discuss the article in relation to Cecil Jay Roberts. I hope this clears things up. I will not address this issue any longer.Cowhen1966 (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Cowhen1966, the sum total of changes to your comments consists of the inadvertent removal of the phrase "at worst" from one of them by two editors [6] [7] acting in good faith who mistakenly thought they were undoing this edit in which you added your signature in the middle of someone else's comment. It is not a question of "if". None of your comments have been removed apart from that one phrase, which you can easily re-add. So, please read over all your comments carefully to avoid re-posting arguments you have already made. Voceditenore (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is not what I experienced but like I have already said for the millionth time. I am moving forward with my NEW responses.I have not made my responses yet. I have not even started yet. The former were just a warm-up of the real responses with regards to why I think this article should not be deleted. I suggest you keep a close eye on this page. you WILL know when I put my responses on here because they will be precise, succinct and informative. I suggest you look back in the next 24 hours because this is probably how long it will take me. You are then free to make any more contributions that is if you haven't already done so. Again I will provide a back up on my page in the unfortunate event that something weird happens.Cowhen1966 (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No. You get to make ONE policy-based argument. Then, you may make policy-based counters a couple of other times, as long it's not repeating information you have already put forward. If you make any repeat comments, they will likely be removed DP 21:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Back up your claim. Where does Wikipedia quote this on the articles of deletion pages?.Cowhen1966 (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC). And who is that person who is going to remove it? Are you referring to some kind of edit warring? Explain. Because I really do not know how we are all given an opportunity to put our point on here and you are implying that some kind of restriction may be imposed on me?Cowhen1966 (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Certainly, we are not talking about anyone on here who has contributed are we? You certainly cannot! because you have a conflict of interest. To the best of my understanding according to the AFD guidelines, The only time evidence should be tampered with on this page is when the Sysadmin comes to close the discussion. Or am I wrong?Cowhen1966 (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Detailed Summary following initial insight into the inspiration and background of how the Article Cecil jay Robert's was created and why I believe it should not be deleted. Keep or send it back to AFC Cowhen1966 (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

1. The article Cecil Jay Roberts started out at AFC. It then passed the review with regards to whether the article should be deleted or not.

2. The article is not written like a blog, an advertisement, a press release or like original research. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research)

3. The article is well written. It is coherent, it uses good grammar, it has good spelling and it is written in encyclopaedic style.

4. The tone of the article is written responsibly, cautiously and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding understatement and overstatement. The article is documented in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject.

5. There are no statements that are libellous. In other words challenged or likely to be challenged. Therefore there are no statements that contravene the guidelines provided for living people.

6.There are the uses of some high quality sources from national foreign newspapers obtained from archives. There are no copyright infringements with regards to obtaining such literature which is made available on request.

7. All statements are sourced using secondary sources. There are no unsourced or poorly sourced materials that are used in the article. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources)

8.the article adheres to Biographies of Living persons in the sense that it does not adopt a language of sensationalism, titillations or harm to living persons.

9. This article does not use certain self published sources. In other words, this article does not contain either books written and published by Roberts himself nor does it use albeit newspaper articles or press releases that are written and published by Roberts himself.

10. In instances where other self-published sources such as the living person's website or website relating to that living person or press release have been used they have not been

• Unduly self-serving
• They have not involved claims about third parties
• They have not involved claims about events not directly related to the subject
• There have been no reasonable doubt to its authenticty
• More importantly, the article has not been based pimarily on such sources.

11. Great care has been taken to include full names and dates of birth that have been linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. In this case such information is retrieved form the subject's own website. There have been no inclusions of e-mail addresses, telephone numbers or other contacts for living persons.

12. Verifiability of sources is not only dependent on newspaper sources but other published sources such as books written in connection with the person's life and career. (these books are not self-published or autobiographical) they may not be found on-line because they come under the category of text materials. Sources do not have to be on-line to justify its usabillity.

13. In terms of notability, the article is "worthy of notice" although acording to Wikipedia, determining notability does not necessarily depend on such things as fame,importance, or popularity. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_who_are_relatively_unknown)

14. In terms of notability this article has verifiable third party sources and therefore can have its own article.

15. The article refers to various contributions that the living person has made and is "noted" for in terms of issues to do with secularisation within the church and the Gospel of Grace message. The subject is a tele-envangelist and has recently changed channels That may be why he is not listed on Faith Television. I am currently looking into that. New evidence has arisen that he used to have a radio slot on Premier TV. These can be referenced.

16.The article has receved significant coverage through various foreign multi-media oulets of which new ones have recently been uncovered. Such coverage invloves some audio, and various media outlets such as the Ghana Brodcasting Corporation archives TV3 archives to name a few. Note: they will not be found in a google search or google books. They can only be found in foreign archives of these companies at request. This does not warrant deletion because the sources are foreign.

In conclusion, I submit that at worst this article should be given time away to restore and clean-up or kept and allowed the necessary changes to be made. If it was not deleted at the AFC stage there is no reason why it should be deleted now. If all else faiils, the article can be made into a worth-while stub. but it must not or should not be deleted.Cowhen1966 (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Cowhen1966 has a misunderstanding of how the Articles for Creation process works. He submitted the draft he had created for a review, but before it could be reviewed, he went ahead and moved it into article space himself [8]. In no way was this draft "approved" via a review at AfC. The fact that no one deleted it while it was there means nothing because no one reviewed it. And even then, if it is rejected as not ready for article space, it is labelled as declined not deleted. That only happens if it is discovered that the draft is a blatant copyright infringement or meets one of the other speedy deletion criteria. – Voceditenore (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course I understand how it works. You get the first 2weeks when the message that appears on the box is whether to decline for want of a better word or accept. Then it goes up for review. As I have said many times over it is not my fault if I asked a question and was told to put the article on something called a sand box. Afterall, even some of you experienced people on here have admitted to making a couple of blunders in good faith. I think at this time you need to add some constructive responses as to the way forward. Put your reasons why you think the article should be deleted or kept. You stiil have time. It really isn't about what my computer illiteracy has caused. Well let's just say the good news is that either way, the systadmin will get to make that decision now won't they? I shall not be making any more comments. I shall wait for the final outcome and I think you should too. ThanksCowhen1966 (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you still don't understand how AfC works. The only reason I have mentioned it is that your very first argument for keeping this article is your completely erroneous assertion that "the article Cecil Jay Roberts started out at AFC. It then passed the review with regards to whether the article should be deleted or not." As to your assertion that I should "add some constructive responses" as to the way forward and put my reasons why I think the article should be deleted or kept, I have done so above, as have all of us. You have either simply refused to read those comments, or you have read them and refuse to take them on board. Incidentally, I have formatted your lengthy comment above for readability. I have not changed any of the contents. Voceditenore (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You were given "a way forward" - I offered to put it back into AFC where you and others could try to work on it, and I gave you tons of friendly advice on your talkpage. Your response was to call me a bully, "big man", and accusations of being on a power trip - all of which could have led to a block for WP:NPA, but I don't do that to people I've worked hard to assist. However, the "return to AFC" way forward is still out there - it's quite obvious from the policy-based discussions above that this is either going to be deleted or returned to AFC ... it's been your choice to put this discussion out of its misery early for a few days now DP 22:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that! As per things that have been said, I think we have all gone a bit overboard to be fair. I have probably overreacted at times and so have you maybe? But none of this matters. To be fair, you were not the one who put the template there in the first place. I may be wrong, but a few people have had issues with notability which is understandable. So at best, the template should have quoted just that and then allowed for a discussion. The rest of the stuff about BLP were unfounded. And I hope I have tried to prove that. That is what I have been disputing all along. I am always open to work with anyone with regards to making it a good article that will adhere to most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines if not all. I completely missed the offer you gave me so really, I want what is the best way forward for this article. Afterall, I do not own it I only created it. By the way, I didn't call you a bully I called you a big man because at the time we were jesting hence, you completely went ballistic about the smiley face incident remember? That's why you didn't have me blocked because I did not do anything that warranted it. You have been threatening to use that card but you haven't yet. Trust me! With My experience with you so far, you would not hesitate to block me if I put a foot out of line. I have kept my cool all along, even sometimes trying to see the funny side of things in the face of mounting accusations. Check my page. Also, In all fairness you haven't offered a helping hand, you've only been trying to make up for a poor judgement at worst and hasty at best for putting this article up for deletion. Regards!Cowhen1966 (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Voicedtione, I'm sorry you feel that my evaluation of the process is merely an erroneous assertion. That is a matter of interpretation and I beg to differ. By the way, you seem to have an unusual and keen interest in this article. Surely, there are thousands if not millions of articles that are pending to be worked on? Just saying? Don't shoot the messenger!Cowhen1966 (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)oh, and by the way, it is just one of the many point don't get too absorbed in just that one statement. Just like you have already stated, you have made your contributions, so I think if you have any more then try and respond to the article and make some policy -based arguments. Afterall, this is what this page and discussion is all about. Time is running out so you better make it quick. No malice intended!Cowhen1966 (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC) oh, I just read that bit in your comment which mentions speedy deletion. Well, my point exactly, and the point of the whole deletion process in general. When an article manages to escape or pass that first step of whether an article should be speedily deleted or not, it means more often than not there is something that can be used or worked on in that article. That may not always be the case but as per Wikipedia deletion guidelines, Deletion should always and I repeat always the last resort. As you and I know, there are people who are trigger happy and just press the deletion button. It has to go through process and I believe this here is an example of one of the processes( although as I hope I have proved was the wrong evaluation of the article) again, this is just my response and assessment of the situation. There is still the systamin's input and decision that we are waiting for and in other circumstances a review panel. I believe the system is fair and Wikipedia has answers for everything. I guess, if in doubt, just check policy guidelines, they always point one in the right direction. None of this is personal just responding to a statement you made. Hope you take it in the spirit that it's intended to be in. Cowhen1966 (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Are there any deletion pages for tele-evangelists, Christian personalities, Christian writers on Grace, Pastors, notable African Christian boy bands? But most importantly, are there any deletion pages for canvassing? just asking? Just curious.Cowhen1966 (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The notices above are standard part of the AfD process. They are not canvassing. They are placed as a matter of course in all AfDs as part of the deletion-sorting process because they help attract people familiar with a particular topic area and possibly extra expertise to the discussion. In response to your query, I have added this discussion to the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Note also, that all deletion sorting does is notify interested projects about this discussion. It does not mean that four separate deletion discussions have been started. Voceditenore (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

But you must admit that canvassing is a great issue when it comes to deletion processes don't you think? Just saying! So whilst we're on the topic I thought it would be a good time to raise it. Oh and by the way, what about the other categories? If they don't exist could we start one for them maybe?Cowhen1966 (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion sorting does not refer to categories. It refers to WikiProjects with an interest in the area or areas related to the discussion and who are listed as wishing to be notified of relevant discussions. Yes, canvassing can be a problem, but there has been no canvassing here. Voceditenore (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-projects can be started no? As for canvassing you said it?Cowhen1966 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing in the sense of inappropriate notification can be a problem in some discussions. It is not a problem in this discussion because there has been no canvassing in that sense. Notification of interested projects is appropriate notification. Whether or not you think there should be more WikiProjects to suit your interests is entirely immaterial to this discussion. This discussion will be decided solely on whether or not the subject passes the criteria for inclusion based on the available references. Voceditenore (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be so sure there hasn't been any canvassing! Canvassing can go undetected because people with the same agendas can be contacted via e-mail. Something no-one else would be privy to. But that is besides the point. No need to go off on one. Just thought I 'd put it out there since you decided to put this article on various deletion notification boards. Also, putting it on some and not the rest would give a false or partial picture to any contributor. Just putting this article under musician, african, etc is a mis-representation of the facts. It would only draw people who have an interest in this area and therefore the other areas such as tele-evangelism and Pastor , and music director would not get a fair representation. Suggesting other wiki-projects including one on canvassing was a question not a demand (a sort of by the way question) Again, I think if one was created for the other categories with which this article belongs to it would be great. One for canvassing would also be great. Sometimes it takes incidents like this for certain needs to addressed if no-one has previously thought about it. So far, this discussion has been used to talk about everything form the creator of the article's behavior( a subject that has entirely nothing to do with the article itself) Personal issues that have been raised on talk pages, again which has nothing to do with the article itself have been raised. So pardon me, if I go off topic for just this once. Anyway, that said, please come off this canvassing issue if you may, and address the article in question. That is if you have any more to add to why you think the article should be kept or removed. But then you have already made your contribution haven't you?Cowhen1966 (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

When you say: "Just thought I 'd put it out there since you decided to put this article on various deletion notification boards" are you referring to me? As you can see from his signature, the first three notices were placed by Gene93k who does this service for literally hundreds of AfD discussions a week [9]. The fourth one to the Christianity project was added by me because you expressed dissatisfaction at the limited range of notifications which did not take into account the fact that the subject is also a Christian pastor. Biographies of Christian clergymen, pastors, televangelists, etc. are within the scope of the Christianity project. This is a list of all currently available deletion sorting lists. If you see one there to which you think this should be added, please let me know, and I will be happy to add this discussion to it. However please do so on the talk page of this discussion Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cecil Jay Roberts to avoid further filling the deletion discussion itself with tangential issues. Voceditenore (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

One can make many contributions to an AfD debate, but only one may be a !vote (Keep, Delete, Merge or whatever). Other contributions are 'comments'. The final decision by the closing admin (who will not have !voted or taken any part in the discussion other than perhaps a clarification of policy) is not based on a count of the !votes, but is based on the arguments and policies. The notification to various projects is standard procedure, is totally neutral, and may be done by anyone. However, if an editor were to notify all his/her friends to come and !vote Keep (or whatever), that would be canvassing. It is not even certain that they would do it anyway. It is permitted to notify individuals if they have had something to do with the article in question, or have an interest in or knowledge of the subject area. This is done by simply posting a link to the AfD and a comment like "You might be interested in this". The great majority of editors that are frequent posters at AfD do not decide because of the identity of a poster. They decide on the arguments and the article and their own research. Peridon (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Great definition of canvassing! My point exactly!Cowhen1966 (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)oh and as for "not being certain that they would do it"s subjective. Just saying? As for the job of the systadmin their job could not have been made clearer! In fact it's probably the only thing about this process that is void of partiality or foul play. Regards! Hover if in even in their case, they interpret the consensus wrongly because they are also human, there is always the review board. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review) So thanks for the heads up but I have already done my homework. I may not be confident about a lot of things with this process seeing as there is room for foul play like the topic of canvassing we were discussing earlier. But one thing I am confident about is the role of the system in. That I am confident about. They will do what's right or the article by all account and purposes.Cowhen1966 (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Vacecitore these are not tangential issues they are responses to points you keep on making. You still havent found one on tele-evangelism; maybe you can start a wiki-project with this one. At least it would give prospective contributors a full picture of the article in question rather than a partial one. And If Gene93K put it up there which he did? Why do you feel the need to speak for him? Cowhen1966 (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• This whole AFD is a perfect example of why I wrote this essay - but of course, we're getting dangerously close to issues due to at least 1 party refusing to actually pay attention to the help they have been given. One cannot quote the rules when one has neither read them nor attempted to comprehend them in the context they were created DP 11:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Careful panda, let's not get personal AGAIN on here! If you want to get personal contact my talk page. This page however, is meant for you to say why you think the article should be kept or removed. By the way, essays are good I don't dispute that but Wikipedia policies and guidelines are even better. Just saying! No need for another debate that does not contribute to why this article should be deleted or kept. Let's try to stay within the guidelines and not sway from it.Cowhen1966 (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC) wow! Insightful essays! A biased though towards your personal views(almost kie youre re-writing your pwn set of rules) hey, but that just my opinion. You put it here for me to read so no need to come after me!! Maybe writing and making sure you're referring to ACTUAL policies and guidelines would be great don't you think? Personally, there are enough policies and guidelines on wikipeidia to address anything from the colour of ones hair to their private e-mail. As a fairly new editor I try to stay clear of essays unless they are a summary of the guidelines and policies themselves.This is often done by editors who like to soften the legal type language often used into everyday language. Cowhen1966 (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC) may I just add that everyone was a newbie at one point. Who knows, I may not have come on here to become a permanent contributor on Wikipedia. I may have just come here to write about 2 or 3 articles or maybe just this one. I think it is wrong to assume that everyone who comes in as a single-editor is here to aspire to administratorship or a bureaucrat even! In that case they would go out of their way to get accepted by the community or bulldoze their way to the top. Learn about reverting, diffs and whatever else there is. That is why when someone has a skill in one area they can go ahead and contribute without making the editor feel like they are incompetent. So you're article on competence does sound a bit boastful and self praising because noone knows everything on here. See, were doing it again, swaying from the article in question. Can we for the gazzilionth time just respond to why we think this article should be kept or deleted? Do you think we can try and do that? Surely we want to make it easy for whoever closes this discussion to just look at the responses and not endless babble about one's character. It is all getting a bit tedious. We have all made our points now let us wait for the outcome please!!!Cowhen1966 (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Oddly, I've never been the one who made it "personal" (that would be, um, you). However, you've added kb after kb of text to this AFD, and have yet to make a single, policy-based argument why it should be kept. You've thrown red-herring after red-herring. You've cajoled those who comment. Remember: NONE of us here have any doubt that your intentions might be valid - WP:AGF is a key concept here. However, you have yet to show a single ounce of good faith towards others. You have failed to acknowledge that people who have been here 8 years, with thousands of articles to their name might actually understand the policies. You have failed to show a single ounce of understanding of the 1 or 2 policies that you have tried to quote - your interpretation matters for naught. As I've noted from along, the discussion has led to one of two possible consensus-based decisions that any administrator here would come to: delete, or return to AFC. "Keep" isn't even on the table. DP 13:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that's up to you to make that decision do you? You certainly have a conflict of interest. And panda, I think you KNOW deep down that you acted in haste. One minute you're offering the option to put it back on AFC, Another minute you're here defending your actions ferociously. Most of the time ignoring all guidelines and policies. You may have put this article up for deletion but thank God you don't get the final say. You know, it was interesting when earlier on you said you offered me the option to put it back on AFC.My question is you don't need my permission to do that? Just as you didn't need my permission to nominate for deletion. Come on panda, what is it to be? Make up your mind. I'm confused. Oh by the way, on the AFD guidelines, an administrator who may have doubts about their actions(which by the way through your discussions on here have shown) can actually do something about it. From all indications I believe you didn't look at all the different criterias before you acted. And now you are doing everything to preserve your reputation. This is not about who wins it's about a single- editor article. And should be treated as such. It's not too late Panda. Save the sysadmin the trouble to sort your mess out. The power is in your hands not mine contrary to what you said earlier. Cowhen1966 (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)oh and by the way, of course my response is going to be with regards to 2 main points. Afterall, those were the only 2 points that were raised and needed to be responded to. If you come up with anymore panda, just put it up here and I will respond to it accordingly. May I also say that length of time time has NOTHI!NG to do with the responses on here. And as for good faith, it's ironical you say that! Where is the good faith when I have even been referred to as Roberts himself. Please do not talk to me about " good faith". Anyway, The systadmin will make their decision based on merits of THIS discussion. Not about YOUR personal views or mine. None of that matters. So step out of your role as administrator for a moment and contribute to this article from a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW- something you have REALLY struggled to do from the startCowhen1966 (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete or Send back to AfC per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The amount of text here at this AFD now vastly exceeds the size of the article, and perhaps even exceeds the sum total of everything else that has ever been written about this guy. Perhaps it's time to take up a collection to provide food and lodging for whichever poor schmuck gets stuck closing this discussion. Friday (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)