Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian McCormack

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Discounting BITE keep reason, and figuring out the user actually requested it be deleted, also seeing the additional delete !vote, I'll close as Delete. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McCormack

[edit]
Ian McCormack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neither notable nor encyclopaedic. Technopat (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I have addressed these issues. Please view the changes to the page. I contend that this entry is notable. Please compare to Fred Figglehorn - what makes him "notable"? I saw him on YouTube once. How many people know Fred? There are thousands of Wikipedia articles of "Fred" notability and less. Remember the Jedi links. If there is a specific issue with the article that can be addressed, please let me know. Someone wanted a citation added (that was great!) I had missed it and I used a biased word "inspired" which I missed as well. Due to this specific issue that was raised, I added a citation and changed the language. I've added more citations, including a secular London newspaper link. Your comment was at 6:41. Please review the current changes and advise me of specific things. I really appreciate all the advice so far, but the vaguness of your comment above and in light of all the entries on Wikipedia that fall into that camp (though this entry exceeds it in droves) I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Thanks again!  :—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildrenOfLight (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Technopat, I didn't see your response on my page - must have been too busy writing this :). I'll just wait for your next response now. Thanks!  ::—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildrenOfLight (talk • contribs) 16:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to show me this article merits a place, The fact that Fred has an article is not a reason for Ian to have one. (I usually use Bill and Ben as examples...) I'm not quite sure why Fred does, in fact. The article strikes me as promotional (non-profit maybe, but promotional nonetheless). (A non-profit prophet?) (Sorry.) I can't see widespread coverage in reliable independent sources in the references, either. I'm willing to be proved wrong, as always. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What are reliable, independent sources to you? Can religious figures not be included in Wikipedia simply because they haven't been interviewed on CNN or The New York Times? How are you determining what is a reliable independent source? I came to writing this article from reading Wikipedia, not from any preconceived notions I might have of what is "objective" or what is "notable" or what is "reliable". How else do we as editors of Wikipedia judge what is Wikipedic than by what Wikipedia IS?
I've come across fascinating people of all religious backgrounds who are chronicled here - without what some people seem to think are "reliable independent sources". What about Jerald F. Dirks andRobert J. Fox? I could list many, many more What makes them notable? They are known by countless people IN their religious tradition and maybe by a few people outside.
And yes, the fact that Fred has a page did lend itself against people who said that just because someone has YouTube videos doesn't mean they are encyclopedic. I was glad to find Fred on Wikipedia. I saw him once on YouTube and thought he was really funny (some of the times). I wanted to find out more about him and where to go to do that? Wikipedia of course! This is why I like Wikipedia. Why do you like Wikipedia?
As to the "promotional" aspects of the article, please be specific - I will gladly edit what is truly promotional. I have already had some very good advice which I have taken to heart and made changes. If you are going to be critical of the article please leave something that is constructive for me to work with. The subject of this article is known for his story - everywhere he goes he tells his story. Since his story IS largely who he is, I have included it in some detail. I don't understand how it is promotional to do that in a situation where the person's story is the reason they are known.
Again, I really, really appreciate specifics and constructive criticisms that can help me as the creator of this page into a better one (I'm finding it really difficult to take anything away from these vague posts to make the article better). Thank you again,

Sincerely :ChildrenOfLight (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amending my last. The article does not establish the notability of its subject beyond his brush with death. The listed references do not seem to amount to significant coverage and come from questionably reliable secondary sources. Gobonobo T C 21:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dissagree Gobonobo and have pasted appart of my answer below to Peridon: "As far as I can tell the only thing that needs to be varified in a situation such as this is that the person is really who he says he is (Ian McCormack) and that he is somebody of note with exposure. CBN, Sight Magazine, Revelation TV interview, etc verify that he isn't my next door neighbor or a ficticious person; The TV interviews, published book, Google search results on his name, YouTube presence, etc show that he is noteworthy by Wikipedia standards - probably not by Britanica :)). What else needs to be verified? The supernatural aspects of his story? No where does it say in the article that his story is true - it is simply his story that has made him popular. What needs to be varified? Again, that he isn't my nextdoor neighbor, someone I know, some fictitious person that I put up on Wikipedia. Ian's story is not on trial here. That he is who he says he is and who I've said he is, of course, is on trial and that is perfectly illustrated through my citations. All we need to know is that he isn't some fraud who has no popularity or coverage that I'm putting on Wikipedia and who you can't find if you Googled him - who's story you couldn't find if you Googled it.
Religious articles on wikipedia that do not stray into politics don't deserve the kind of scrutiny that Pat Robertson has. He has said some very politically charged things that 3rd party, independant, secular, mainstream media has covered - is that the only way a notable Muslim, Buhdist, or Christian speaker can be accepted on Wikipedia by your standards? To say some nasty things about people so that CNN will tune in and then we all get a mainstream secular source for the article? I certainly hope not because it isn't very Wikipedian." Thanks for the ammend, and really, this should not be an exercise in editors sharpening their swords on some new guy. It seems like you guys are really going the extra mile here to make this endangered animal extinct. The article is innocent and unpolitical. Think of it as a cute little rabbit or a majestic wolf that some vicious Sarah Palins with guns are trying to blow away :)
ChildrenOfLight (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gobonobo, the WP:SINGLEEVENT nowhere suggests the deletion of such articles but rather is a discussion of whether the event be covered or the person. I believe Ian falls into this category: "In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved." I don't understand the logic you used here in calling for the deletion of this article. Wikipedia is a different breed of encyclopedia than what we grew up with and I love it for that. I cannot understand all of this persecution over an article that has many relevant sources and extensive links. The only thing people seem to be arguing over at this point is whether or not they subjectively feel it has a place at Wikipedia. I declare, what makes people think they can determine for other people what is "encyclopedic" or not? If there are 13,000 people who have viewed just one of Ian's many different interviews and videos on YouTube, not to mention the thousands upon thousands he's personally talked to since the 80's, don't you think those people would like to find a summary on Wikipedia? What on earth do you use Wikipedia for? I'm a scientist - do I use Wikipedia for scientific relevance? No, I don't because I've found it to be inaccurate and faulty on a number of occasions. If you want to apply the editor's sword somewhere do it there! That being said, all the constructive editing suggestions I've received so far have been great - it has really made it a better article and I'd be happy to receive more. But I can't understand the logic I'm seeing here on this page. Please explain to me how WP:SINGLEVENT allows for the deletion of an article. Thanks for your comment
Sincerely ChildrenOfLight (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC) 208.38.107.242 (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you find inaccuracies, please correct them - or at least join in the talk page discussions about them. Peridon (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sightmagazine piece is not really a piece 'about' - it's mainly quote. I'm not sure about the status of the magazine, either. CBN? Easily confused with CNN or CBS, but it is the Christian Broadcasting Network - founded by Pat Robertson. Both are Christian publications, not mainstream independent journalism. I especially have doubts about anything connected with Robertson. As to WP:SINGLEVENT, I'd also point to WP:NOT#NEWS. Peridon (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged Dinks and Fox for their lack of good referencing. Peridon (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peridon, first, thanks for the reply, I appreciate it. 3rd party independant sources do not have to be mainstream. Jerald F. Dirks (what, are people deleting these things now?) andRobert J. Fox as a few examples. As I understand 3rd party and Independent, the Christian Broadcasting Network is both to the subject of this article - they were not involved in his experience (3rd party) and they are in no way associated with his organization or church (independent) other than the fact that they are both share a common faith. How is this an issue in this case? Let's get to the bottom of what needs verifying here.
As far as I can tell the only thing that needs to be varified in a situation such as this is that the person is really who he says he is (Ian McCormack) and that he is somebody of note with exposure. CBN, Sight Magazine, Revelation TV interview, etc verify that he isn't my next door neighbor or a ficticious person; The TV interviews, published book, Google search results on his name, YouTube presence, etc show that he is noteworthy by Wikipedia standards - probably not by Britanica :)). What else needs to be verified? The supernatural aspects of his story? No where does it say in the article that his story is true - it is simply his story that has made him popular. What needs to be varified? Again, that he isn't my nextdoor neighbor, someone I know, some fictitious person that I put up on Wikipedia. Ian's story is not on trial here. That he is who he says he is and who I've said he is, of course, is on trial and that is perfectly illustrated through my citations. All we need to know is that he isn't some fraud who has no popularity or coverage that I'm putting on Wikipedia and who you can't find if you Googled him - who's story you couldn't find if you Googled it.
Religious articles on wikipedia that do not stray into politics don't deserve the kind of scrutiny that Pat Robertson has. He has said some very politically charged things that 3rd party, independant, secular, mainstream media has covered - is that the only way a notable Muslim, Buhdist, or Christian speaker can be accepted on Wikipedia by your standards? To say some nasty things about people so that CNN will tune in and then we all get a mainstream secular source for the article? I certainly hope not because it isn't very Wikipedian. Thanks again for the reply,

SincerelyChildrenOfLight (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think the content from the Christian sources qualifies as independent, it more closely resembles promotional material. That leaves the article as it is with insignificant coverage in a local paper, but no reports from medical sources or other significant coverage. Hekerui 23:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hekerui,
The Christian sources only need to varify that Ian McCormack is who he says he is and not what I'm saying he is. They don't need to varify his story. They prove he isn't my nextdoor neighbor, someone I know, some fictitious person that I put up on Wikipedia and they help establish, along with the videos, google searches, YouTube presence, etc that he is "notable" by Wikipedia standards.
His story is not what is on trial. He says it happened just like Smith Wigglesworth "believed that God had cured him of hemorrhoids". It is his personal story that happened to him that he is sharing with the world. If I remove the part about him being certified dead by doctors, since at this point I don't have any 3rd party independent medical sources, would that satisfy you? He still claims he died and came back to life, but on Wikipedia there is no mention of doctors and certification. I feel like I might have got somewhere here - I will edit the article forthwith. Thanks for the input and please sign your post so that I can see who you are and keep up the conversation. thanks,

ChildrenOfLight (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT

Okay everybody, I deleted all references to medical certification of death and time period for death and doctors doing anything. I think it is now entirely in Ian's mind without reference to others. His story as it is doesn't need any sources other than himself (unless I've missed something) per Smith Wigglesworth "believed that God had cured him of hemorrhoids". All the other sources establish his notability and the fact that I'm not putting up my buddy or youth pastor or whatever and that this article isn't a prank. Let me know how you feel - I totally see Hekerui's point and maybe this is what you all have been saying all along. I think it reads a lot better and makes more "encyclopedic" sense. Thanks

ChildrenOfLight (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GnuDoyng, thanks for the KEEP - and congratulations! You are the very first person to ask to keep this page. REMARKABLE! I would appreciate any input you have on the article to make it better. Thanks,
ChildrenOfLight (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DONTBITE refers to treatment of users, not articles. "As a Christian I have voted for keeping this entry." really takes the cake. Hekerui (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to meet you Hekerui, I'd appreciate it if you addressed the COMMENT and looked at the changes on my article page. I'd appreciate any other specific suggestions you have (the medical thing really helped) - if there is somewhere else in his story that we need 3rd party independent references, let me know. As to who he is, I think I have extablished that beyond a doubt through Wikipedia standards. Thanks again and I'd appreciate any input,

ChildrenOfLight (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Peridon, what is notable in your opinion? Explain to me why Ian McCormack isn't notable with all the references and links by Wikipedia standards. What articles do you think ARE notable? He certainly is more notable than Judith A. Ramaley. I'm writing as I read, not as I think (ie I'm judging notability by what I like to see on Wikipedia - articles about movies, YouTube people with a strong presence, characters I come across on the web with a strong presence there, obscure Jedi warrior facts :), Lord of the Rings character Bios, etc). I wouldn't use Wikipedia to write an article about the Queen of England - its not safe for that - would you? (It would be a good starting place to write an article on the Queen of England if the references and links are good).
I'm convinced now, that what is happening here is entirely subjective at this point. People who would never even glance at anything remotely resembling a 'Near Death Experience' or never feel that arthritic spiritual/religious bone in their body are the ones arguing it isn't a notable article. How many people need to see something or know about it before it becomes "notable"? Hundreds of thousands (at least) of people in the US think CBN is noteworthy, but you obviously aren't one of them :). You know there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of examples on Wikipedia of Expanded Universe fame, whether they are comic book characters, comic book writers, illustraters, etc. How many people know about them? Are they notable to you? Maybe to you and everyone you know, but certainly not to other people. I'm okay with that - that is what makes Wikipedia different. Are you against what Wikipedia IS?
Thanks for the comment (although it was kind of vague, and frustrating, and sabertooth, and...:)). Please be specific.
ChildrenOfLight (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I wouldn't use a Wikipedia article on Queen Elizabeth to write a college paper on her unless I used the links and references as a starting point for scholarly sources. Reading my post above just a few minutes ago struck me that people might think I was suggesting we delete Queen Eizabeth's page :(. Which wasn't what I meant at all. I like the Queen...and her dogs. All I'm trying to say is that you thinking Ian isn't notable is an extremely subjective determination that would flatten the majority of Wikipedia articles. Most Wikipedia articles are about people or things that you and I have never heard of before, nor are they notable (judging by your standards) Not a soul I know in the whole country knows who Judith A. Ramaley is and I can guarantee its far less than those that know Ian McCormack. So how do we "subjectively" determine notability? I think it ought to be off web presence (if the person is known well that way) or positions attained (such as Judith - even if they aren't notable for anything they did and aren't known by anyone) and I'm sure there are more, but these are pertinent to the discussion at hand. Do you see the dangerous dance this is becoming? Let's be objective here and realize that there are an awful lot of people who YOU don't know about (and OBVIOUSLY don't care to know anything about) who ARE notable to a certain large populace (in this case mostly Christians). Thanks for the post and sorry I had to add more to it :)
ChildrenOfLight (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT

Peridon pointed out on his talk page that a professor such as Judith A. Ramaley might be covered under WP:PROF. This may be so, I'm not sure yet, but while I was reviewing this page, I discovered that there are guidlines for porn stars but not for religious leaders - that's pretty sad and shows a subjective biased in my opinion. It seems like religious figures are simply tolerated here but not encouraged whereas pornstars actually have guidelines (it is disputed only over the awards given). I understand if a religious person is political or vocally opposes other religions that we need to be really careful how we as editors deal with that just like with politicians, but Ian falls more into a "celebrity" standard than a religious or political figure. His videos and interviews seem to come more from that angle. He is not on a stage of debate like many other religious figures (aka Pat Robertson) and ALL political figures are. I certainly hope I'm not seeing things the way they are. Please help clarify this secular versus religious source issue in light of my post's peculiar situation. Thanks everybody, and remember "secular" doesn't equate to "objective". I posted Peridon and my discussion below as it is directly relevant and probably should have been done entirely here. ChildrenOfLight (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Discussion with Peridon
There's a lot of articles that aren't currently referenced properly, or about notable subjects. They get found eventually - mostly... (There's about 13 million articles.....) Ramaley is the president of a university - so far as I can see, she meets WP:PROF. There isn't a Queen of England at present to write about - Liz II is Queen of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There already is an article about her - Elizabeth II. This is an encyclopaedia - things here should be verifiable in reliable sources. I prefer sources that don't have a religious or political bias - or suspicion of - and definitely ones that combine the two. I also don't like trade sites that base their 'reviews' on press releases. Am I against what Wikipedia is? Would I have made 8,400 edits if I was against it? I don't like rap, but I worked to save an threatened article on a particular rapper because I could see notability there (unlike in many other rappers). I don't see it here. Peridon (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying then that you are only interested in seeing articles with secular sources? Are you saying that someone who is notable within a religion or movement but hasn't done anything stupid or outlandish or a stunt to get secular publicity isn't notable? Sounds to me like you're gearing up to remove all the religious articles that don't have secular sources. That is very dangerous and is, in other words "censorship". I am not promoting anything here, I am sharing an article on someone who has notability on Google, TV channels, YouTube, and within the Christian faith.
I don't agree with your belief that sites that have religious bias can't be sourced as reliable in this situation - we are not dealing with anything political in this post, nor are we "verifying" Ian's belief and proving it - it can't be proved - its his personal belief. Why do we need a secular source? I am not writing an article on Pat Robertson who said some very hurtful things and earned some of your precious secular sources by hurting people and gaining notoriety. As I've said so many times it now comes easily to my tongue, Ian's story is not on trial here (it was until I removed "certified dead by doctors"), the trial is whether he is a fraud who no one knows and has no web presence, figment of my imagination, someone I personally know, or sombody that has no Web presence. Just because you've been an editor for some time doesn't mean you're objective. Please provide me with the link to your rapper - I'd like to know what you find notable and how you subjectively determined it. I'm glad to hear you don't suggest every article for deletion - I was worried there for a while :). Remember, Ian's views are not on trial - what needs varifying at this point is simply that he exists and that he is notable by Wikipedia standards. Thanks for your post and I appreciate your reply. Thanks again ChildrenOfLight (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you don't agree about the sources. Let's leave it to the consensus. As to the rapper, that was probably a couple of thousand edits ago and I can't remember his name. Can you remember what you had for tea on 27th May 2008? I just remember it being unusual for me to get involved with it, and that I seem to remember digging out some sources (and probably doing a copy-ed as well - I just itch when I see bad text). I don't doubt Ian exists. What I'm trying to do is establish if there is notability. I am always prepared to change my mind - but by seeing evidence not by being hectored. Peridon (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I can remember, it was Earl Grey tea (the only kind I drink in spring). Remember, you gave the example, so don't get ruffled about it. I genuinly want to know how people who took the time to request my page be deleted are judging that it should be deleted and since I can't get at the bottom of it, I thought maybe if I look at stuff you've done, I can figure it out. You took the time to suggest my article be deleted - it isn't very polite to then call my requests for more details as "hectoring". I want to know what standards you use for "notability" since you have based your position on a vague concept that really comes down to subjectivity. And the "consensus" is inately biased against anyone new here, so that isn't a very constructive way of going about it either. I hope you're not upset that someone is trying to defend their article from deletion and is asking for rock solid reasons, wouldn't you? Thanks for your reply and I hope you don't consider this "hectoring" - makes me wonder who Hector was to get it named after him :) ChildrenOfLight (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant the meal 'tea' but no worries. Peridon (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildrenOfLight (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Comment

Okay, I'm compromising again :). I don't feel we need any more "secular" sources than the blurb I posted from a local "secular" paper, but just for those who want to see more...I've some "secular" blurbs about Ian - basically just telling the local community who he is and where he'll be speaking.

http://www.hawkesbaytoday.co.nz/local/news/man-who-died-to-give-talk/3656811/

http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/s/36122_what_happened_when_i_died_talk

http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/4212622.Death_survivor_to_give_talk_in_Manorbier/

It's just more verification that he exists. Should I add any of them? As far as further notability goes, I could add a ton of links to churches that have advertised his talks (but I feel that it is all secondary to what I have already posted). Thanks, ChildrenOfLight (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, Fayenatic, you are agreeing with the others that "independent" really means "secular"? I think this needs to be established in the rules then and I'm not at all a proponent of doing so. It seems to me that there is an interesting dichotomy becoming apparent through this exercise between the people who use Wikipedia and the people who "professionally" edit it - at least the one's I'm meeting here on this AFD page. I'm not at all in favor of turning the Wikipedia I know and use into an online free version of Britannica, but I've come across a lot of editors who seem to have this as their goal (I particularly like Peridon saying, in effect, that they'll "eventually get to them all" - most likely all the articles I like to read :)).
Don't get me wrong, I think exercises like this AFD discussion are good because they test the material to see if there is something genuinely behind it (I would, however, have appreciated more discussion before it was instantly put up for AFD - felt like someone was a little trigger happy - "shoot first, ask questions later" :)) or if it is simply someone making stuff up or posting an article about a local car garage that has no notability except to a local town. I feel I have more than adequately done so for Wikipedia standards and its coming down to a subjective discussion of what is "notable" and what is "independent". By web standards alone, I'd say Ian is notable, not to mention the rest, so why are people still asking for secular sources? I suppose if he sold his story, made lots of money off it, and lobbied to get onto CNN, everyone would be happy (like a lot of the evangilists you can find here). That is really sad :(. Ian doesn't lobby to get any fame or notoriety, he comes on air because he is ASKED. With that in mind, its incredible he has notability at all! Someone point me to where "independent" = "secular". Thanks for your post Fayenatic but I disagree with your logic - please prove me wrong. Also, why is everyone posting "as a Christian" now, as if that somehow adds weight to their argument (specifically Fayenatic and Gnudoyng)? Thanks,
ChildrenOfLight (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Fayenatic, I think you're looking atWP:IRS and taking the most skeptical, critical, approach to applying it here. Where there is room for valid disagreement, one should take caution before proposing judgement - as Tolkien wrote (through Gandalf), "do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement." (I hope I'm not geeking anyone out here by quoting such a source :)) Perhaps you have taken great care in your decision to cast the vote - you know best :), but I think we'd all agree, that there is "the letter of the law" which can be applied rather harshly and "the spirit of the law" which is what we all would prefer to operate under, I think (I hope). Thanks again.

ChildrenOfLight (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of a religious speaker, a secular source would be demonstrably independent. Without that, we have to look for multiple sources that are of broadsheet quality an with coverage that is not promotional in nature. I thought there was only CBN, but having looked at SightMagazine.com it looks not bad -- but I've never heard of it before, and it has no article here yet, so I'm not sure how solid a source it is. These articles, however, are essentially autobiographical; there is no independent journalism verifying them. I remember an AFD about another evangelist where I'm sorry to say I concluded that the guy had exaggerated the parts of his story that gave him notability. I'm not doubting McCormack's integrity, but we need more solid coverage than those interviews to support an article in Wikipedia.
"As a Christian" was to acknowledge that the majority-view participants here are interpreting sound policies objectively, not targeting Christian articles for deletion. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying Fayenatic, but Ian's story (as it is written on Wikipedia) can't be verified because it all happened "once he died". His story is his personal belief and no one is saying that it is true or false.
I disagree with "we need more solid coverage than those interviews to support an article in Wikipedia" because it often doesn't. This is a valid argument (despite your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) because we must judge what is Wikipedian by what IS Wikipedian. Should we throw out Smith Wigglesworth because there aren't any of your precious secular sources? (at least I didn't see any there) Should we scrutinize him because there aren't medical sources to the issues he said he was suffering from and then "believed he was healed from" - its just unbelievable how we're all stretching here to swing the axe. Again, I think prudence is the better part of valor and very few people seem to be thinking in a Wikipedian fashion (judging new articles by what Wikipedia IS). Thanks for the comment - the debate is fascinating :)
ChildrenOfLight (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what was the name of that evangelist? It would be nice to get some specifics so I can do a little of my own research here (both you and Peridon used a vague entity that you didn't name as supporting evidence) - I'm sure you can name him and I'll look him up on Google :) Thanks,
Sincerely ChildrenOfLight (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • THE LONG GOODBYE

I have decided to remove the page Ian McCormack for the time being rather than drive the issue to a glorious last stand (epic though it might be :)). I have appreciated all the comments and discussion we have had here - looking back, this is an incredible work we've done here in so short a time. I personally maintain my article's merits, but will endeavor to meet some of the standards I feel the community has pressed rather harshly upon me. I understand I am new and the first AFD is somewhat of an initiation process to make sure young inexperienced whippersnappers know what their getting into. Though not falling into this category myself, I have learned a great deal about how to write a better article from this debate.

Sourcing

I'm a little bit concerned about the "religious" sourcing argument and people calling for "secular" sources as somehow "more reliable". People who have faith don't really think that just because someone (or an organization) doesn't have faith, somehow their investigation into "faith" is going to be objective. People who don't have faith generally do think that a secular mode of investigation is somehow "objective" AND they certainly don't think that a religious network is going to be. There is no such thing as objectivity - we may approach it at times, but I think it’s always better to state what you believe so others will know your slight bent. Fox news says it’s balanced but it really isn't - its conservative (I wouldn't trust it for objective info on Obama). CNN argues its objective but it isn't - its liberal (I never trusted it for objective news on Bush). Muslims best trust Muslim sources (on issues of their faith), Christians best trust Christian sources (about their faith), and atheists, agnostics, and the like best trust secular sources (about anybody else's faith). Just a thought. Anyways this is turning into a whole discussion in and of itself:).

Dichotomy

I feel that there is a dangerous dichotomy developing within Wikipedia (perhaps it has always been there). I have used Wikipedia since my college days in the early 2000's and I found the fount of popular (but not necessarily "notable") material fascinating and welcome. I loved finding stuff here that I'd never find in any encyclopedia (comic book characters, religious zealots, lesser known actor bios, YouTube stations, and the like). I respect those who believe it should be "more serious" but perhaps they should recognize the vast amount of users who enjoy it for what it is now (ha! maybe what it was then - who knows maybe all the stuff I used to look up has been deleted). I will refer to them as the Wikitannicans (Wikipedia +Britannica). I'm not sure why they want to exclude so much (is there a size limit to Wikipedia that I don't know about?).

The Prophecy

It would be unfortunate (for everyone) if a split occurred and we users had to go elsewhere (consider this a prophetic warning if things keep going that way - maybe you all know this and I just think I'm on to something :)).

The End of All Things...or is it?

That being said, I know that most editors started out as users and still are, of course. Maybe some of them need to return to their Wiki-childhood :). I look forward to further collaboration with you all and will attempt to do what little I can to make Wikipedia a better place (in a few years maybe I'll be a Wikitannican working on Wikitannia - who knows, maybe I'm too liberal right now:)) Thank you all for the ride - I'll fall on my own sword now :) Sincerely ChildrenOfLight (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I hope we are all on the same page regarding how to evaluate this article. The question should be whether McCormack is notable as a speaker and evangelist. What we think about his claimed death/near-death experience and vision is irrelevant to whether he should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I did a search in the Google News Archive for articles containing the words "Ian McCormack" and either "Christian" or "jellyfish", and I only found a few. So if he has not been in the news that much, particularly for a person who is active in the present day, I tend to think he is not notable. However, particularly if the film in development about him actually gets produced and commercially released, that may change in the future. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ian_McCormack&oldid=1142207087"