Talk:Michael Pitts (pastor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Michael Pitts (preacher))
Jump to: navigation, search
February 3, 2015 Articles for deletion Kept

BLPN[edit]

Anyone tempted to revert the recent edits by CorporateM and Ukexpat should first see the recent discussion at BLPN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because...

Michael Pitts is a notable personality in the city of Toledo, nationally in the USA, and globally in many circles. He is the author of nine books, has Pastored for almost 30 years, and oversees a network of more than 100 churches. Considering this, his influence reaches to the tens of thousands of people. Several newspapers have written articles about him, and his church, and with dozens of page views each day, I cant understand how this page could be considered for deletion. As far as I can tell, several similar pages exist on wikipedia, stating achievements, product, and influence.

1Timmo1 (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... I think an AfD is needed for this discussion --CorporateM (Talk) 19:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Case for speedy deletion[edit]

This article does not comport with BLP guidelines on several counts, to include: NPOV, NOR, and verifiability, and the content fails to adequately establish general notability of the article's subject. Dispassionateness and disinterest of tone and non-partisan use of reliable secondary sources are very questionable, and the article is overweighted with favorable promotional-like content without any balancing content referencing the substantial extant critical and controversial information regarding the subject published by reliable and credible secondary sources such as legitimate newspaper articles, law enforcement websites reporting arrests, and published civil court records. The nature and history of this page belies the validity of any potential eventualism claims as well. The article relies too heavily on self-published, non-independent, and questionable sources. The two contesting arguments are weak and not convincing, and have the sound and feel of being written by individuals closely associated with or strongly biased toward the subject. More could be said, but this should be sufficient to make a strong case for speedy deletion.Editorialideation999 (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)