Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wagners paradigm

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 redirect to C. Peter Wagner. WjBscribe 19:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wagners paradigm[edit]

Non notable religious teaching. The article's claims to notability come primarily from Google searches which return about 25 hits. eaolson 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, some clean up needed, but he is a notable evangelist.JJJ999 23:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Google shows 9 hits total for Wagner's paradigm, only 1 referring to this [1] There is one more under "wagners paradigm" Two relevant ghits is not notability,and there's no other indication of any. The connection with the composer in the article seem merely a confusion. DGG (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to C. Peter Wagner. He may be notable, but I can't find any consistent definition of his "paradigm" -- he seems to use that word a lot, in a lot of different contexts. The first eight Google hits for his name +paradigm give eight different contexts, as I read it. If by some chance this gets kept, at least please someone move it to "Wagner's paradigm" WITH the apostrophe. Accounting4Taste 00:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Push again for keep, some more people need to vote however...JJJ999 11:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- can't see what the fuss is about, it's obviously real, can't a few people clean it up, or something? why wasn't this tagged first, why did it go straight to an AfD? Recommend improving it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.65.24 (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to keep, obviously no consensus for removing, it should rather be cleaned up as suggested and given more references and discussion, which I'm happy to do. Reasons for deletion are not convincing, and this was not tagged for refs before as noted.JJJ999 00:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that JJJ999, who has suggested three times above that this article be kept, is its creator. Accounting4Taste 00:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was clear...JJJ999 00:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of this information is already replicated in Wagner's article. It would seem this is a nonissue. Redirect. - Che Nuevara 15:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to C. Peter Wagner per above. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above; any further discussion of its suitability for inclusion can be on that article's talk page. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 15:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per Iain99. /Blaxthos 16:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per DGG. STORMTRACKER 94 17:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already mentioned in subject's article. Vote early and vote often! --Sc straker 17:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per DGG. Pete.Hurd 20:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' There is some interesting information here, it should be moved to a section within C. Peter Wagner--Rtphokie 22:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to C. Peter Wagner - this article merely duplicates material that already appears in the article on C. Peter Wagner. There is no substantial reason for such duplication. If the article had some substantial discussion of the paradigm, there might be a case for the article, but until that is provided, the biographic article is adequate. Peterkingiron 15:54, 7 October 2007 (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.