Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Crouch, Jr.

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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul Crouch, Jr.

Paul Crouch, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A lot of text with no assertion of notability. This Crouch doesn't inherit notability from other semi-notable members of his family. Almost no third-party sources, none of which provide any significant coverage of him that satisfies WP:BIO. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The article for Paul Crouch Jr., meets Wikipedia criteria for Notability in more than one category, that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. BIOGRAPHY: ‘The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field ‘, and as ENTERTAINER: ‘Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.’ Paul Crouch Jr., was also named as one of the Top Most Influential People in Christian Broadcasting. Additionally, this article is well sourced by third party publications. This dispute is based on broad sweeping statements that indicate sources in the article were not read in good faith, and perhaps there is a misunderstanding of who Paul Crouch Jr., is as a stand alone leader in the religious community, and his role as a prominent religious broadcaster and Chief of Staff of TBN. TBN is the largest religious TV network in the US, and arguably in the world, followed by EWTN. Views on whether a religious figure or organization are notable, may differ based on personal bias, or religious affiliation. Paul Crouch Jr., is very notable in the Christian TV industry, and he and TBN certainly have a ‘cult’ following. Paul Crouch Jr.'s professional career, and contributions to the media industry and/or humanitarian outreaches are well documented and sourced in this article and others associated to this article. Additionally, this article has historical authority on Wikipedia. It has been reviewed and vetted by many NPOV Wikipedia editors. Professionally, Paul Crouch Jr., is the VP and Chief of Staff for TBN and all of the affiliate networks managed by TBN. TBN is the largest religious network in the US, and the 3rd largest over-the-air broadcast company in the US (He personally manages the day to day operations of TBN, as his mother and father are in their late 70’s). He has had this role for over 13 years, and did not inherit notability, rather he has established a stand alone reputation in the religious broadcast community, separate from his father Paul Crouch Sr, who is in semi-retirement. In addition to managing TBN, Paul Crouch Jr. oversees TBN Enlace, JCTV, The Church Channel, Smile of a Child, and TBN’s 13 international networks. As an ENTERTAINER, He hosts Praise the Lord, and Behind the Scenes, which are both daily shows watched by millions of people in the Christian community. He is recognized in the Christian community as a TV personality and key figure in the evolution of TBN, and religious broadcasting.BermudaWoman (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC) — BermudaWoman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. all of which were about the Crouch family. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits made to articles about the Crouch family are in line with Wiki NPOV standards, with neutral sources. These articles have been edited and largely rewritten by multiple contributors from Wikipedia. Improvements for the most part, although some have vandalized the articles due to the high profile and controversial subject matter.71.97.55.109 (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: Full agreement that family relations by no means satisfy WP guidelines for notabilty. I see no independent sources that even faintly imply notability. My suggestion would be to combine TBN and the Crouch clan in a single article, since none seem to be notable enough to warrant separate articles. รัก-ไทย (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul Crouch's relationship to his family, has little to do with his independent contribution to the evolution of Christian TV globally, or his role as host of 2 daily shows on this network, in addition to overseeing the operations of TBN US and international for the past 13 years. His parents are semi retired, and although they started TBN, Paul Crouch has expanded the networks global satellite network and US carriage relationships with all the major cable companies. There are many people on Wikipedia that are noted for far less. If you saw no independent sources to support notability, or achievement in the broadcasting industry, I suggest you read the sources in good faith. This article is well sourced, whereas sweeping generalizations stating that it is not, seem to indicate a review of the article is called for71.97.55.109 (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. 71.97.55.109 (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - an assertion of notability (one of the most 50 influential Christians) has now been added. StAnselm (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Of the 50 most influential in Christian broadcasting, firstly, but more importantly, the list appears to be that compiled by a non-notable website. It's not like being on the list for Time or the Guardian - I mean, I could also make a list of people I think are influential and put it online, but my opinion isn't encyclopedia-worthy. Same applies here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - The source for Top Most Influential People in America, is an online magazine called Christian Cinema.com. In addition to Paul Crouch being noted on this list, the article covers an extensive interview with Crouch, discussing his broadcast career as the host of 2 daily TV shows watched by millions of households on TBN, and his role as Chief of Staff at TBN. The article supports the fact that Crouch meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article as a Bio, and a Entertainer that ‘Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.' If you read his Wikipedia page, and the sources, it is clear to see that he is notable in his own right.71.97.55.109 (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Click the "news" link above, and you'll see plenty of coverage him in reliable sources like the LA Times, even with the "Jr." included. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

^Comment Jclemens Frankly, TBN, and the original founders, Jan Crouch and Paul Crouch and Paul Crouch Jr.,, who is the one responsible for this discussion, are beyond 'notable', they are bordering on notorious. Whether you refer to traditional Christians, or other religions, this network has probably caused more controversy than any other in the history of religious programming. Millions love them, and millions hate them. respectfully. BermudaWoman (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BermudaWoman (talk • contribs)

If they are notorious, you should be able to provide sources that say so. Otherwise, you're just making a disallowed WP:FAME argument. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a reason WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid, and it's because Google hits do not necessarily reflect actual coverage. I did the same Google News search you did, but I found precious little that actually satisfies WP:BIO. Just by removing the quote "We don't just want to preach to the choir; we want to reach the unchurched" (which is a quote from him in an article about something else, ie. not coverage of him that attests notability) from search results, I narrowed them down by nearly 70%. A number of the other hits are actually about his father, Paul Crouch Sr. (for example, the WaPo and LA Times articles that mention him being seventy years old. I'm not sure what the cause of the mistake is, but it's definitely about the father and not the son, as confirmed by other stories on the incident.) All the other hits are trivial, usually either quoting him briefly in an article not about him, or mentioning that he is currently on the network's board or whatever without saying anything more. None satisfy any notability guidelines. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It appears that none of the 19 sources associated to the article for Crouch Jr., are good enough? This discussion is becoming illogical. In 2003, Paul Crouch Jr., along with his son Brandon, founded JCTV, TBN’s youth TV network. This new network was specifically the brain child of Paul Crouch Jr., I would think starting a TV network viewed all over the US is notable. JCTV is carried by 722 US cable and broadcast affiliates, and is available to 16,359,870 US homes, according to Rentrak 2010 ratings for JCTV. (page 5)In 2010, JCTV and Smile of a Child were awarded the Parents Television Council Entertainment Seal of Approval, which is presented to outstanding networks, films, television shows, and DVDs that emphasize positive, pro-family values and do not contain sex, violence, or profanity. Paul Crouch is quoted in reference to this award.71.97.55.109 (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. 71.97.55.109 (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Except I'm not sure it's changed for the better. There's a lot of material about TBN that doesn't belong, and certainly not in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this information should be moved further down in the article, but for now, I thought it would be a good idea to establish 'up front', the recent notability of Paul Crouch as the Chief of Staff/TBN. Many of the most notable advances in the network have happened under his management in the last 10 years, including the launch of new networks. Per the above commentary, it doesn't appear that reading sources, or acknowledging sources is included in this discussion (logically and with a NPOV). The article will need to be restructured correctly as good sources are added.71.97.55.109 (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: So much unsourced material and what is sourced is spam for TBN. Outright delete and let his role in TBN be made more explicit on that page. P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment P.Oxy.2354 - Your user ID seems to be new to Wikipedia? I find no history on your contributions aside from this discussion? Of the 19 sources on Paul Crouch's page, 9 of them are from NPOV publications. They are not spam, just sourcing the facts stated in this article.71.97.55.109 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You're saying this as an anonymous editor?? In fact, a quick look at P.Oxy.2354's contributions shows edits going back to July 2010. StAnselm (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I am sorry. P.Oxy.2354, and User:StAnselm. when I sign a post (BermudaWoman (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)), I didn't think it was unsigned. I thought that was the 'quick' way to sign. I obviously don't know where to look for the history of a fellow editor. The fact is, I am really in need of some Wikipedia 101 when it comes to all the links. When I looked at Oxy.2354, I saw no history and wondered why. Please keep in mind, that this entire discussion started on Paul Crouch, and became so illogical that it landed here. I sincerely feel the page for Paul Crouch Jr. is a target of bias. The amount of press, bad and good, establish notability. He hosts 2 daily TV shows on a global TV network? Entertainer at a minimum. If a person is not in to Christian TV, or understand who PCJr., is in that world, I can understand some confusion. But this has gone on to the point of contentiousness in lieu of the facts. I want to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, so I will make it a priority to understand all the links and how to communicate better. Thanks. BermudaWoman (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC) and if that doesn't ID me, BermudaWoman.

• Keep. News and book sources aplenty mention this guy's name. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

But do they mention it in any significant detail? I already responded to Jclemens, above, re: the GNews hits, and the GBooks hits don't look much better (I get one book that provides significant coverage, the rest are mentions). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese - There are internet mentions for good or bad several pages deep on all the search engines, book sources, magazine articles, newspaper stories? Why do you continue to minimize the public records for Paul Crouch Jr.? It is very logically clear that he is a notable person, (whether one likes or dislikes him), both as a religious figure, entertainer, and notable TV network executive that not only manages the largest Christian network in the US, but has received awards for a new network he began JCTV,viewed in 16+ million homes in the US. The fact that you suggested this page be deleted, and you continue to ignore sources that prove notability,have me re-reading the criteria for notablity, only to read once again that this article qualifies in several categories.In the end, I believe that senior Wikipedia editors will see just the facts, and not broad sweeping statements made by myself or you71.97.55.109 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It has been pointed out to me by Roscelese that I appear to be 'ornery' in regards to this discussion. I apologize if my comments to this discussion are viewed in this way. I am a relatively new Wikipedia editor, and I have not learned all of the protocols for discussions of this nature. 'Don't eat the Newbies Please'. Responding to a comment, by improving an article based on comments, or answering a question, is my only intention. At this point, I will defer to Wikipedia Senior Editors to rule on this discussion. It has been my experience to date, that Wikipedia Senior Editors remain NPOV, and make decisions based on facts. This article has undergone many edits by Wikipedia editors who have consistently been NPOV. When someone comes along and hacks a page, or egregiously violates Wikipedia protocol, Wikipedia rules.71.97.55.109 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Google book previews show considerable non-trivial (and generally negative) coverage of "PC Jr", as one source calls him. The article itself seems one-sided and should include some criticism. --CliffC (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you name the books which you thought consisted of significant coverage? The one which called him PC Jr. was the only one which I found to cover him in enough detail to satisfy the notability guidelines. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

[1], I have no time to spend picking through them to analyze and offer up those that might meet your standards. However, you mention "...the only one which I found to cover him in enough detail to satisfy the notability guidelines." Given that the guidelines are satisfied in your eyes, will you be rethinking the nomination? --CliffC (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dude, I did that search and what I found was not enough. That's why I asked you to name the results you found that you considered enough, so that perhaps I might come round to your way of thinking. I went to the trouble of looking through them, and if you're going to make the argument that my assessment of them is wrong, it would be courteous to say why. And, to your other question, no - a number of sources like that one would attest notability, I mean, but one does not cut it, per WP:BIO/WP:GNG "sources," plural. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:58, 12 June 2011 (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.