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 and redirect to Christian Fellowship Ministries. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayman Mitchell[edit]

Wayman Mitchell (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)

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. The sources currently used are self-published, primary sources and the few independent sources I found would be better suited on his church page rather than his personal page. JohnnyBflat (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. JohnnyBflat (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. JohnnyBflat (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- If as the CFM page says, he is the founder of a movement that now has 2000 churches, he is certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Been watching this page for a bit and can't figure out why it was not AfD yet. He is mentioned on the church page and should not have a personal Wikipedia page. Sgerbic (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete & Redirect to church page, and merge any RS material (if any) to the churches page. All the sources used are currently self-published by devotees, not really RS. CatCafe (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--articles about bishops are typically kept. He is close enough for our purposes.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Epiphyllumlover, I did read that but I note that WP:CLERGY says it is for major denominations, which CFM is not. It also says, "People listed as bishops in Pentecostal denominations may fail AFDs unless they have significant reliable third-party coverage." and this is where I believe he fails. JohnnyBflat (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Discrimination was written into the rule on WP. Sort of like how the IRS has special rules for certain denominations but not others, even though supposedly church and state are separate, some denominations simply due to size or history had better lobbying access. We can do better than that. As he was personally involved at one point in leading over 100 churches that would make him into a sort of bishop. As for the association that he is credited with founding, I don't think that would necessarily make him notable.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree but the discrimination goes further than between major and minor denominations. It discriminates between religious and non-religious people in that otherwise non-notable people can get a page simply for holding a high office (bishop) in a religion whereas their equivelant in a secular organisation cannot. We can certainly do better by removing the clergy clause and applying the same standards of notablilty to everyone across the board. JohnnyBflat (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The closest secular equivalents to bishops listed under the "people" notability guidelines are the "named chair" standard for academics and the standard that judges holding a statewide office are notable. Bishops exercise a judicial function, although that is not their only role. The matter is that we have Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism/Notability_guide#People due to the number of Catholics using this website. If the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Charismatic_Christianity was still active, maybe the members would have written their own notability guideline.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

• Delete- any mention of him could be covered on the church’s page. He doesn’t seem to be notable while the church does seem to be. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to church page. He fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete- any mention of him could be covered on the church’s page. He isn't notable while the church does seem to be. Nothing has been added to the page since this AfD started to improve his notability. No additional news items or articles pertaining to him have appeared in the media. He is still not notable.Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- He meets the GNG guideline due to a level of coverage adequate for our purposes, as found in these sources. All but one appear to be third party. One may or may not be third party. Here are articles: Discerning the Body: An Analysis of Pentecostalism in the Netherlands, The Development Of Pentecostalism In Dutch Speaking Countries, ETHOS, COSMOVISIÓN Y EFICACIA SIMBÓLICA EN UN GRUPO PENTECOSTAL and here are books: The Jesus People Movement: A Story of Spiritual Revolution among the Hippies and In Pursuit of Destiny : the Life Story of Wayman Mitchell by Ian Wilson, and Still Taking the Land by David J. Drum, The Vine and the Branches by Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, and Pentecost, Mission, and Ecumenism: Essays on Intercultural Theology : Festschrift in Honour of Professor Walter J. Hollenweger by Walter J. Hollenwege and P. Lang (page 139).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Having reviewed each link, I have to disagree. 3 sources are self-published, 1 source is a passing mention that tells us nothing except his name, 3 sources cannot be accessed to determine if there is enough material to qualify, and 1 would be more appropriate on the church page. Let me break each source down in more detail. Discerning the Body: An Analysis of Pentecostalism in the Netherlands - What does it actually say? It cannot be accessed to determine if there is anything relevant or just mentions his name in passing. The Development Of Pentecostalism In Dutch Speaking Countries. - Same as previous. ETHOS, COSMOVISIÓN Y EFICACIA SIMBÓLICA EN UN GRUPO PENTECOSTAL. - His name is mentioned once in passing but nothing about him or his church so it doesn't qualify. The Jesus People Movement: A Story of Spiritual Revolution among the Hippies. - A rehash of self-published primary sources. See my comments further down the page for context. In Pursuit of Destiny. - Self-published primary source. Still Taking the Land. - Self-published primary source. The Vine and the Branches. - More about the development of CFM and its split from Foursquare, so better suited on the church page. Pentecost, Mission, and Ecumenism: Essays on Intercultural Theology. - What does it actually say? We get part of a sentence and that's it. Not enough to determine its usability one way or the other. JohnnyBflat (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & Redirect to church page. Hi, thanks for pinging me. Sources used are mostly self-published by devotees, not really RS. CatCafe (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not true that there aren't independent sources.--Jahaza (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Epiphyllumlover & Jahaza pinging me and others to restate our position here, just to start an argumentative debate or to infer that I lie? I'm not interested, so give it a break you two. I have looked at the article again and I stand by my statement: "Sources used are mostly self-published by devotees". The article's been as poor as this over the last decade, so no-one has previously cared. It's an atrocious article that doesn't conform with WP policies, it needs deleting and redirecting. CatCafe (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for pinging you, I went through the edit history and sent brief messages to all sorts of people going back to 2014 with two exceptions, JohnnyBflat, and Ser Amantio di Nicolao who was only adding authority control and I didn't think he would be interested one way or another. I should have checked to see if the people I had pinged had already contributed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A) I didn't ping anyone to come here. B) I took you to mean "sources used to support keeping," not "sources used in the article," since the latter is not particularly relevant to the question of notability and notability is what is being discussed here.--Jahaza (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & redirect to church page. The former content of the article was mostly unsourced, so there is no loss in removing it from public access. – Fayenatic London 20:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources that mention him are mainly about the church, not the person, so "delete and redirect" remains the appropriate action, despite the additional citations suggested. – Fayenatic London 12:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are RS's:
  • Charisma Magazine is a reliable source on the Charismatic movement from outside the Potter's House denomination.[1]
  • Mitchell is covered in Richard A. Bustraan's The Jesus People Movement: A Story of Spiritual Revolution Among the Hippies[2], a scholarly book reviewed in academic journals[3][4]

There is wide news coverage demonstrating his influence.

• • News coverage from Guam and Micronesia where his church is popular[5]
  • News coverage from Romania[6]
  • News coverage from the Netherlands[7]

Up above, Epiphyllumlover has provided additional links to scholarly books.--Jahaza (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Charisma magazine article would be better suited to the church page as it's primarily about a church split. The Jesus People Movement book is a collation of information cited from the same self-published sources used on Mitchels page currently without adding anything new, so can hardly be considered a reliable source. The article from Guam, I agree with you. The coverage from Romania and the Netherlands, I can't say as I don't speak the language. What's the WP policy for using foreign language articles on English pages? So I think there's only one article there that would meet the requirements. I will have a look at Epiphyllumlovers list and comment shortly. JohnnyBflat (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesus People book is a reliable source because it is published by Pickwick Publications of Eugene Oregon. Citing some self-published sources does not discredit it. Pickwick/Wipf and Stock is a scholarly book publisher, see this. As for foreign language sources, you can use a machine translator. See also Wikipedia:Attribution: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, provided they are otherwise of equal suitability, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly."--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but according to WP:Secondary the Jesus People book is NOT a reliable source because a secondary source "provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." The Jesus People book does none of this. It just rehashes the primary source information, thus remaining a primary source. JohnnyBflat (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I finally got around to translating the two foreign language articles. The Romanian one is primarily about prisoners converting in order to receive aid packages and only mentions Mitchell in passing, so not a RS. The Dutch article is primarily about tent revivals and mentions Mitchell is the head of the American church at the end, so possibly a RS but I think it's iffy. JohnnyBflat (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Could you people please take this debate to the article's talk page - i.e. discussion about what sources are not in the article (and who no-one thought were attributable before). These debates are 9 years too late and in the wrong place. Seems to be a lot of regretful venting going on here. Let's get back to the issue at hand, the page is an atrocious article that doesn't conform with WP policies that's sources used are mostly self-published by devotees. I have seen no commitment to improve the article, so it's likely it will remain poorly and thus it should go. CatCafe (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your concern I added two reliable sources to the article, but JohnnyBflat Roxy the dog reverted them. See this diff [8]--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. Please doublecheck your claims before posting, thanks. JohnnyBflat (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See this diff?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your diff proved you wrong Epiphyllumlover. That was someone else, not JohnnyBflat as you claim. CatCafe (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that diff. I can also see it was done by Roxy the dog and not me. So I reiterate, please doublecheck your claims before posting them in future. JohnnyBflat (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This could have been such a slow motion trainwreck - you guys need to look at the wider picture;) Now, EPL, I can offer you consolation ... we have all done it, and you will have to own it. See the top of my own Talk page as the perfect example. best. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 23:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Roxy the dog reverted me, not JohnnyBflat, so I was wrong as he said I was. Meanwhile it seems there is an edit war over adding the sources or not.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to the "church". He's perhaps pertinant to the church, but doesn't meet GNG himself. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in totality there is enough reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion to pass WP:GNG particularly as sources do not have to be directly about him but include information about him such as articles and books that are mainly about the church but have coverage of him as well so he does qualify for a stand-alone article, imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to his church page, per several commentors above; he fails notability. ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:TNT - churches can be notable by the number of adherents, number of clergy/employees, and other objective indicia. Clergy are not automatically notable. I don't see WP:SIGCOV for this person. The article is a hash of personal items, soapboxing or evangelism, and just plain poor English writing. We are a non-sectarian charity, not a free web host for evangelism. I do not oppose a redirect, as we have done for assistant bishops, monsignors, canons, and similar Christian clergy. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2020 (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.