Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meade Ministries

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meade Ministries[edit]

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

The article is a stub and has unresolved issues dating back several months, including lack of references, no explanation of notability and no context. TechBear (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Charles Meade. Keep per ThaddeusB below. Not to put too fine a point on it, this is a Christian cult. I found a number of newspaper articles about it, including this one from the South Florida Sun Sentinel of 19 May 1991, which is reproduced at Cult Awareness and Information Center. ~~I don't think that Charles Meade and the Meade Ministries need two articles.~~ The article does need a fair amount of work. He may only have around 1,000 followers, but he says he has visited the evening star, walked with God along the Milky Way, healed the sick, revived the dead and "in the name of Jesus" commanded would-be robbers to drop their weapons. Todd Lewan did a four part series for the AP in April 2005 on Charles Meade and the Meade Ministries. --Bejnar (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would assert that merely being a cult does not meet the definition of notability, nor is being the founder of a cult sufficient for notability, nor is being someone who makes outrageous statements. Notability is not temporary, so, again, why should this article and the article on Charles Meade be kept? TechBear (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should be kept because there has been significant coverage of them in reliable, independent sources, and there is a lot of discussion about them is secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the subject has sufficient notability for a stand alone article, as it is the subject of several new articles and also various "anti-cult" websites such as [1]. The two are closing related, but I wouldn't completely object to a merge, but I do think both subjects meet the notability guidelines independently of each other. About half of the new sources don't mention Charles by name. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of this information is included in either article. My contention is that the articles, as they currently exist, do not meet Wikipedia standards. If not fixed, the articles should be deleted. TechBear (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is no longer true, and even if it was AfD is not a way to force improvements. We don't delete articles based on their current state as Wikipedia is a work in progress and There is no deadline for completion. If we deleted every imperfect article, there wouldn't be much left. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there are over 100 new hits for the "church"'s old name, of which 82 don't mention Meade by name at all. Notability (and independent notability) actually isn't in doubt at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:35, 21 August 2009 (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.