Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Manche

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. While not unanimous, there are many arguments here that the references, while numerous, are insufficient to support the article. The BLP concerns tip this to delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Gordon Manche

Gordon Manche (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)

NOT TABLOID. I listed this for speedy as an attack page, but that was declined by another admin. If someone were to somehow write to to be npov, it would involve removing almost all the material, so much so that there would be no indication of notability DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC).

The article is intended to say why he is worth to have an article and to what he is notary for. If you wish to be more neutral i invite you to start adding the body of article which woulf help having some different views. It is a well known fact that media reports comtroversial news while manche s claims on his pages are not ideal as sources many times, but not always. You can request a third person to give you a review on the person. Most of what have been deleted is factual but i admit that i should be more careful what words to use even though making it look controversial will attract reaader just like media reports. So i agree to not act like media and report some positive views.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Continentaleurope (talk • contribs)

• Comment It has now been re-edited to remove some of the purely negative material, but, as I thought would bethe case, there's nothing left to show notability. Having a large salary (for a minister) does not make someone notable DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• His salary is controversial, and in the ref, you could add more information to article why he received such coverage about it. Purely negative material was removed and will accept it but some also removed non negative sourced material. He is notarynin the usa, europe and africa. Some can add some info about that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Continentaleurope (talk • contribs) 01:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Weak keep. It's not just the salary--it's also the gay conversion, the lack of proper financial reporting, etc. I looked at a half a dozen articles from the Malta Times and Malta Today, and it seems to me he's as notable as many of the other people we have biographies on. I agree that tone is as yet difficult, but sometimes a person's coverage simply is mostly negative. However, that first version was way too far from neutral. It's getting better. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, I've often heard the argument that "he's as notable as many other people we have articles on", but I certainly never expected to hear it from you! DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• DGG, you are absolutely right. I guess I'm jaded. Thank you for pointing this out. But even setting that aside, he seems notable enough on his island... Drmies (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per past outcomes, whereby we almost always delete attack BLPs of marginally notable people. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have improved the article keeping in mind both neutrality and positivity. He is indeed notable in Malta being an individual with his own philosophy so,ething which would be unlikely if he was in the USA having so much people with similar philosophy. Can you check the article now Gordon Manche and give me feedback. I am no longer using words in article such as "claimed" to sound more neutral. I also added many positive approaches. I have added his own version or side of the arguments. I intend to add relations with other religions which distance themselves from but Manché is quite open to join them in constructive discussion. He showed this trend on national tv by the malta public broadcasting servicing, on famius program xarabank. He is quite diplomatic when arguing and charismatic. However there are lack of sources about this limited to youtibe videos in many occasions. Could you please give feedback? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Continentaleurope (talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Prune heavily -- This still has a lot of element of an attack article. The subject's views are certainly controversial, but far from unique among fundamentalist Christians. Some hold views that are anathema to certain other groups. It is fair to set those out objectively, but some of the content is sensationalist and written as a tabloid journalist might. Views expressed about him by others do not each need a separate subheading. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per Bearian. The article is probably necessarily negative if we follow the sources, but the notability is marginal at best. StAnselm (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe keep But is he minor? I suspect that very few Wikipedians read Maltese, the article is sourced to Malta Today, but here: [1] are the search results on him from the Times of Malta and the The Malta Independent here: [2]. I'm not sure he's minor enough to just delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per E.M.Gregory's reference search, significant coverage in two newspapers. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, DGG is right about this being something that should have been speedily deleted under the BLP policy, the subject is not only non-notable, but insignificant, the 200 refs remind me of one of Armbrust's favorite snooker players, of whom I had never heard before, who had 350 refs. Kraxler (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Wikipedia is to allow artcile written in a neutral point of view which matter to countries who use English/American as a daily writtena nd read language. If sources are too negative does not mean it should be deleted. If so you must delete most politicians biographies as they receice very harsh criticism. Had a person write about a priest or monk in Malta which has lots of positive review he would not be that notary to have an article. The article Gordon Manche could be checked to be very positive compared to sources used as only info which are relevant was taken. Some of the info has more citation as Manche himself encloses many information on his websites. If appearing on every journal, TV, Radio, Magazines, etc, (here [3]) in Malta consequently is not notary then nothing is notary. He is certainly notary in an island of 400k people of which people prefere wikipedia in English/American. Preceding unsigned comment added by Continentaleurope (talk • contribs) •• User:Continentaleurope is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT

It's a clear case of Idolatry and/or Hagiography, a violation of WP:PROMO #1, which recommends: "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions." Kraxler (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Weak keep I think there are sufficient independent references to merit a short article, possibly about 1/4 the existing length, with the irrelevant and oversized photos removed. - Arjayay (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: It doesn't often happen with AfDs, but the article is worse than it was when it was nominated, and comes under WP:TNT. The pictures are ridiculous, and File:(null) (3).jpg is an obvious copyvio. StAnselm (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• File:(null) (3).jpg is not a copyvio in Malta as it was used mutiple times in media. Just in case delete it. Preceding unsigned comment added by Continentaleurope (talk • contribs)

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep Good article about this person. did not know about his personal life and career. perhaps just delete the Laicity part as it is in reference to all religions, except catholic not just to evengelicals. very well explained. article seems very positive in the pastor`s view to some extent unlike media in malta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.22.190.233 (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

KEEP & improve/revise; i have no problem with the matter of "notability"; in the context of the society of the very small island nation of malta, he's notable enough. he has been in the news there enough to qualify by any reasonable standard. given, that he meets the criteria of notability, it becomes a matter of the quality of the article & sources, not deletion. (btw, when did it become a "thing" that every dd gets "relisted"? we didn't used to do that... ) Lx 121 (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• KEEP Very good work and fully cited. The dude has already received enough publicity in Malta more than the president of Malta. Now even here. Perhaps expand some argument. The article uses a some quotations said by Manche without quoting from several individuals who may oppose his views. Seems to be in his favour. Well done and please expand. I wish to know more about him than we already know. Write something about his character, attitude, appearance. His life in the US was long enough to write more and even his missions abroad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.46.57 (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Gordon Manché is clearly a notable person, a pastor in Malta. However, the article is waaaaaaaaay too long. I think it should be severely trimmed down. 12.180.133.18 (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - as per DGG and Kraxler. I don't find the few objective opinions to keep persuasive. Nothing in the searches to show this person meets our notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: someone might have a little meat factory going? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• weak Delete I was going to !vote keep on this one, but there is so much BOMBARDing and CITEKILL that I'm starting to agree with StAnselm; the best thing would be to nuke it and start over. The attack/POV would be minimised and (hopefully) the page would become more reasonable. Primefac (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@onel5969: Gordon Manché is written about in all of the major newspapers of Malta such as Malta Today, Malta Independent and Times of Malta. 12.180.133.18 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

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.