Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Friel

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. for deletion. Disagreement over notability and whether sources are sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Friel[edit]

No indication that this article meets WP:NOTE or WP:BIO. Of the 17 references at time of nomination, 16 are clearly not independent (3 are to the agency representing Friel, 3 are to pieces written by Friel himself and 10 to mentions by organisations for whom Friel has performed/spoken/written) and 1 is to a blog entry (unreliable and unacceptable per WP:BLP) I am also nominating related article Wretched with Todd Friel for deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I would like to request that all the editors making WP:GOOGLEHITS arguments to cite specific articles in specific reliable sources that contain non-trivial coverage of the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as sources don't establish notability, facts do: 1500 stage performances, radio host of several broadcasts (including nationally), evangelist, writer for Christian Chronicle and Christian Worldview Network, TV host for 30+ million homes nationally, a writer, and a few other things - all of which establish notability. Sources don't establish it, being notable does. Sources are to verify them. -- American Eagle (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIGNUMBER, even if any of this were supported by WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aren't sources required to prove that those things have actually been done? ILovePlankton (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. And there are sources to prove them, or turn on your TV. The problem is that most of the sources are Christian organizations, which makes it worthy of a template message, but not deletion. -- American Eagle (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To each his own. ILovePlankton (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, (with the possible exception of his agency) all of the sources are "Christian organizations" and (with the possible exception of the blog entry) none of them are "independent of the subject". Additionally, as none of them are scholarly or major news organisations, their reliability is highly questionable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per notability guidelines. If it hasn't been covered by independent sources it's not notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to be evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to me there are enough mainstream news sources to establish notablity. LinguistAtLarge 07:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After clicking through most of the free news articles (in the google news link above), I couldn't find much of anything that would be usable. There might be usable references in the articles that are pay per view. LinguistAtLarge 07:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it's a legit source and article in pay per view it can be included. Most archives seem to be pay per view, which is unfortunate, but if there are articles covering this subject substantively they count, whether availbe on the web for free or not. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is there's generally no way of knowing whether a pay-per-view article has substantive coverage (or merely an insubstantial mention-in-passing) without paying for it. This is why sources referenced for specific facts in the article count, but WP:GOOGLEHITS do not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources which are "pay-per-view" on the Internet are free to view at many public libraries. Some will even give you a library card which you can use to access some of these sources for free at home. DHowell (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also keep in mind that this isn't a game of "find the name mentioned in a major newspaper". There has to be significant coverage where this person is the subject of the article, not some passing mention in a book, magazine or newspaper.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has received substantial coverage from non trivial publications thus satisfying BIO guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could you please specify what this "substantial coverage from non trivial publications" is? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are generally required for notability, but they do seem to exist, these 23 gnews hits seem to have enough substance from major sources to solidly support keeping.John Z (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existing references are too closely connected to the program (radio networks) or the subject of the article (his agent or the link to an online store carrying his DVDs and links to Friel's writing). There are some Google News hits where Friel is mentioned but I', not seeing anything that does much to establish notability. While the sources are independent reliable enough (St. Paul Pioneer Press, Star Tribune, etc.) are announcements that Friel's show is coming to a local station but this kind of news is the nature of radio and doesn't do much to establish notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – But someone please rewrite article. I found the following third party – verifiable – creditable and reliable sources [1]. Now has a Sirius satellite radio contract, as reported here. [2]. I believe he has hit the big time. Is he a Robert H. Schuller no, but neither is he a storefront preacher. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 20:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first link appears to be to a trivial mention (simply an 'upcoming events' announcement of an event he was participating in), the second does not state that he "Now has a Sirius satellite radio contract" -- the Sirius Satellite Radio connection was for his former The Way of the Master Radio program. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 22:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Extraordinary. I am certain I have heard of him, yet I am in a different continent and we do not move in the same circles. So I find the lack of reliable, independent and substantial sources very odd, but compelling from a Wiki-notability point of view. Comes closest, maybe, to being a creative professional ... or to being an entertainer - he may have a "large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" ... but I come back to the lack of reliable, substantial, independent sources. My heart wants to make an exception here but my wiki-head says he is better deleted for now and re-created when he is (in the Wiki sense) notable. Springnuts (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Delete - I've looked through the sources, and discounting the non-independent and self-published ones, there just doesn't seem to be enough written about him to justify an article. There's plenty of material written by him, but that can't be used to source an article about him. By all means, some evangelists are notable - but I'm not convinced he is at this time. Terraxos (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, material written by him can be used to source an article about him, according to policy, as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources". DHowell (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Take note of this deletion discussion, which proposes that if this article is kept, Wretched with Todd Friel will be merged into it. -- American Eagle (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment both articles should be deleted, neither is sufficiently notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject of independent reliable sources. The article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, even if just an "announcement that Friel's show is coming to a local station" is significant in that his name is in the headline of a 552-word article; this American Daily article is substantial coverage, and even though it appears to have a conservative bent, it is sufficiently independent of the subject for notability to be established. DHowell (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The full version of the first article can be found here -- its mention of Friel is clearly trivial. Is American Daily a WP:RS? It appears to be simply a politically partisan blog that accepts contributed articles via email. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. While the Pioneer Press article is clearly not all about Friel, I wouldn't say that it is "clearly trivial" either. The first two paragraphs are about Friel, and there are 4 more paragraphs which quote him. And how did you decide that American Daily is how you describe it? The author is described as a "Staff Writer" and an "award-winning investigative reporter and researcher" whose written for "numerous local newspapers". This hardly sounds like a blog which accepts articles from any random e-mailer. Even if it is partisan, are you saying it exercises no editorial control and does no fact checking over its contributed articles? Where's your evidence for this? And I'm sure that in this day and age even the most respected printed newspapers would accept articles from their journalists via email, so I'm not sure how that matters. DHowell (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is "clearly trivial" in that it's depth of coverage is similar to the example of "trivial" included in the WP:NOTE footnote. Laura Adelmann may be a "staff writer" (though I take author-bio-blurbs with more than a pinch of salt) -- but not for American Daily -- she works for New Media Alliance (which is itself merely a "coalition of citizen writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets"), which in turn shops its writings to AD (and presumably other news outlets). AD's contribution policy can be found here. AD gives little impression of editorial oversight or the infrastructure needed for fact checking, and is most certainly not a "mainstream news organization" in the context of WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NOTE footnote talks about a "one sentence mention", and that is precisely what it is: a one sentence mention. If one tried to use that as a source for an article, the most the article could ever say is "Three Blind Mice was a band that Bill Clinton was part of while in high school." That's trivial. Far more can be said about Todd Friel from the information gathered from mainstream newspapers alone. And I see no reason to doubt the reliability and independence of Laura Adelmann as a source for information about Friel, despite whatever AD's contribution policy might be. DHowell (talk) 05:45, 19 December 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.