Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zola Levitt

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 incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Zola Levitt. As it stands, the article looks very much like a WP:MEMORIAL, but there might be enough sources to salvage it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zola Levitt[edit]

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

An article on a televangelist which has a profound lack of reliable independent sources. No evidence of actual significance. Seems to violate WP:MEMORIAL. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails basic notability requirements. --Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article notes he was the author of more than 50 books, 200 songs, and 2 musicals. He was the host of a weekly program on hundreds of TV stations and formerly the host of two top-rated radio talk shows. The charge of WP:MEMORIAL is specious: "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." The article existed when he was alive and well. The assertion of non-notability is erroneous. An assessment from a peer: http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/other/zola "You are the best-known and best-loved messianic Jew in the world." - Ac44ck (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current version of the article is deficient in citations to reliable sources, but Levitt was one of the more significant figures in the promotion of Messianic Judaism and there's quite a bit of material about him available at gBooks[1] and gScholar [2]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violates WP:MEMORIAL. --Cox wasan (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the way in which you think it violates WP:MEMORIAL. - Ac44ck (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of how they might meet notability guidelines. --On the counter (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep - Article is written like a WP:MEMORIAL and an advertisement. It needs help. This person does not have significant coverage in secular print but moderate in religious Evangelical circles. Usually AfD start on the Talk Page and ask/discuss improvement. This seems very quick. Basileias (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing special about him, just a televangelist. All his info comes from himself or his friends. He does not deserve recognition in an Encyclopedia.--Calliphoria (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Calliphoria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - I am concerned about the treatment of articles who are about Jews tied with Christianity. Like in the article recently deleted (Michael L. Brown), we are having a few Single-purpose account accounts springing up submitting them for deletion or voting to delete. See here. This is concerning. I would suggest this vote not be counted. Basileias (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a vote, but I strongly suggest that you tag SPAs.Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. Ipsign (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos and Basileias. It's a complete hot mess, so incubation of the article may be necessary. However, my look-see into the potential sources shows lots of possible additions and citations. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep— it's a little hard to sort out the books by this guy from the books about this guy in the google books search, but it can be done. he is notable in the sense that he is discussed in at least two independent and reliable sources. i added two from google books to the article in the (newly-created) further reading section (instead of just linking to the searches here, because they were hard to find). there are certainly also reliable sources in the news search, but i don't have time right now to sort them out of the nonsense. anyway, two third-party rs is enough for the gng, despite the sorry state of the article. note: i am not counting that jewsforjesus.org source among the sources. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not notable in the sense that he has not done anything much notable. For the most part, there is very little about this person that is not from the evangelical world.--TiberiasTiberias (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment— i'm not sure what you mean here. could you point to some part of WP:GNG that excludes sources from the evangelical world, or from any world, for purposes of establishing notability? he wrote some books and then people wrote about those books in third-party sources, making more than just passing mentions. one of the sources i added to the article is published by zondervan. it is an evangelical publishing house, yes, but i can't see how anyone would argue that it's not reputable, independent of its subjects, and thus WP:RELIABLE. likewise with the encyclopedia of evangelism. when we evaluate scientists, we accept the writing of other scientists, so why not evangelicals writing on evangelicals? of course evangelicals will be the ones to write about evangelicals. possibly no one else cares enough to write. if they produce reliable sources, their subjects will meet the gng. anyway, it's not like evangelical christians are some kind of fringe group. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is miles away from perfect, but as indicated by Alf above the sources already cited do seem to meet WP:GNG. Definitely something to work with and third-party news reports satisfy notifiability. Also as mentioned above, there is no reason to suggest sources published "in the evangelist world" don't satisfy WP:GNG.basalisk (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nominator, no indication of notability, and insufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Gelobet sei (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person fails notability. --Iairsometimes (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is written like a WP:MEMORIAL and looks like an advertisement. This person does not have significant coverage. --Kylfingers (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vague claims from User:Arxiloxos (g books this and g scholar that) that he has made no attempt to add to the article are unimpressive completely. Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment—anyway, i trimmed out all the unsourceable crap from the article and made it encyclopedic, at least to my eye. it seems to me, as i said before, that two solid reliable sources makes the dude meet the gng. i'm not even counting worldnetdaily as reliable, but just leaving it in to verify date of death.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (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.