Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Frost (minister)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 07:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Frost (minister)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Michael Frost (minister) (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)

The two sources are a Morling College profile (affiliated, not independent) and a bare namecheck in Christianity Today. The article was created by CEGM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a name match for Frost's organisation. Much of the article's edit history is COI / SPA. Basically, it's an advert. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete Negligible IRS that I can find. Aoziwe (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep in light of improved article referencing and below. Not fully convinced about general nature of IRS but yes, there is enough to satisfy GNG and AUTHOR. Aoziwe (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of books on Amazon:
This is Wikipedia. We require reliable independent secondary sources that are actually about the subject. A list of books indicates that such sources might exist, but does not actually provide notability, especially for a spam article like this. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. Did you see the links above the list of books?
As a side note, the assertion that the article is 'spam' is subjective and, given others' responses on this page, seems premature. peterl (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the article was created by a likely SPA/COI editor in 2007, it has been edited by numerous others since. Notability needs to be more firmly established with more independent sources (work which E.M.Gregory has started) but multiple books cited in multiple other books would appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR. I've only done a very quick search, but his work is cited in an article in The Washington Post as an expert opinion here and by the Christian Post here. There is also some news coverage of his participation in a protest e.g. here. Melcous (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Among those "numerous others" are several SPAs and IPs with no other contributions, plus one account that claims to be the subject himself, and a lot of trivial wikignoming. Which non-conflicted editors have made substantive contributions? Guy (Help!) 23:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; I have no way of knowing which editors are non-conflicted. Do you think the wording is biased or promotional due to COI editing? If so, lets work on changing it, but that doesn't seem to be a good reason for deletion if notability can be established. Melcous (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ping Guy, but he's obviously got this on his watchlist. Stop with trying to negate every comment and admit you didn't do WP:BEFORE correctly and move on. Whether the author himself, someone associated with the subject or paid by the subject or someone associated with him edited the article or not is not a reason to delete an article. The only reason to delete an article is if the subject is not notable, and this subject is clearly notable. CoI editing can easily be reverted, but Wikipedia should have articles about all notable subjects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did do BEFORE. Other people have dramatically lower standards for sourcing, clearly (e.g. Eternity News, which gets and official "nope" from me), or a higher tolerance for spam. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article was admittedly poorly sourced when nominated. Moreover "Michael Frost" is a lamentably common name, some keywords (Christian; Sydney) help - a little. I and others have now found and added what I see as sufficient sources to firmly establish notability. Kudos to Melcous for clearing out the PROMO and to User:Melcous and User:Walter Görlitz for doing a WP:HEYMANN expansion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum on sourcing, search terms. Searching "Alan Hirsch" + "Michael Frost" (they have co-authored a series of books,) brings up articles from Patheos and Christianity Today from which the articles on both Hirsch and Frost can be improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2019 (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/Michael_Frost_(minister)&oldid=878137603"