Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RHEMA Bible Training Center

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 merge. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RHEMA Bible Training Center[edit]

A very nicely written advertisement, but an advertisement nonetheless. The only source cited in this article which is not from the organisation's own website, is on the site of the designer of the new basketball court - and as such is not properly independent. I Googled a bit but found only more of the same: uncritical puffery based presumably on press releases, comments from alumni and the like. One namecheck in Google News, and that's ab out it. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge relevant information into Kenneth E. Hagin. This one was tough for me, as I know this school is extremely well known in the Charismatic world. However, after looking for secondary sources and finding none and coming up with only blogs and churches who endorse the school on Google, I simply cannot vote keep on an article about an unaccredited school. Redfarmer (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Redfarmer: I think that Word of Faith might be a better target article than Hagin's personal entry, but I agree that this organization fails WP:ORG in its own right. Tevildo (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Redfarmer: I prefer Kenneth E. Hagin as a target but have no objection to Word of Faith. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is not an edit-on-demand service. Merge does not require WP:AFD, it just requires WP:EDIT. It is not very fair to direct the closing admin to select from several possible targets recommended and to decide what content in such a long article should be merged. Closing administrators are ideally not very familiar with the subject of the article, and interested editors should not tell an admin close this and now go edit it in this way. Be WP:BOLD and edit it yourself and then say merge already done, redirect this to target-x. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few respected editors have taken offense at my comment above. I did not intend to offend anybody, and I don't think I said anything inherantly uncivil; but all I wanted to say is please do not add more "Merge per aboves", as the merge recommendations are incomplete in that they do not say WHAT to WHERE. Please be specific, and if you are inclined; do the bold thing. Thanks. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. If admins aren't prepared to close AfD's properly, they shouldn't close them at all. Tevildo (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Perhaps you'd be willing to share a little more on this? I am very interested to hear what you have to say on this subject. I am all ears, mon ami.~~ JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continued on appropriate talk page. Tevildo (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weakj keep a merge can be discussed at thew article talk page. DGG (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree with Hagin's theology, but it is widely supported in charismatic circles. Accordingly, I would have thought that an institute training people in it (though unaccredited) was notable. Problems over sourcing etc, require tagging, not nominating as AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with that, in that the place clearly fails WP:ORG due to lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Then don't delete it, Guy, fix it. As Peterkingiron observed, this place is very notable in charismatic circles, which make up a very large segment of the U.S. population. Plus their classes are transferable to accredited schools, so they are notable in and of themselves, not just as part of some other person, place or thing. I recommend you at least try to find those independent sources - I guarantee they're out there. Goo2you (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, emphasis on the former. Nothing really encyclopedic there, nor anything much to back it up. --Calton | Talk 05:12, 22 January 2008 (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.