Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Camping

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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn as notability has been established. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Harold Camping

Harold Camping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Lacks 3rd party references which establish the notability of this person. References given are to books authored by this person. Google news search brings up a number of articles but they focus on a 1994 doomsday claim. Is this person really notable? Rtphokie (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Yeah, I think he's notable. Subsequent to the doomsday stuff he appears to have advocated withdrawal from organized religious groups, and engendered a fair amount of controversy. Interestingly, almost all the independent sources I can locate are critical of Camping, and none are in the article, making me think that there probably are some NPOV issues to address here as well. I won't list all the hits, but this search will pull up a lot of privately produced content. What pushed me over the edge to notability was James White's book (not self published) refuting him. It may be negative, but it still speaks to notablity. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} "_{So let it be done} 14:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Camping certainly is notable, in that he has a large following among religious believers around the U.S.A. and the world and a significant network of radio and TV stations and is listened to and watched by many people. Even if one thinks of him not as an religious figure but as a media presence, he is more notable than many pop culture and media figures who are covered in Wikipedia articles. The real problem with this article is that it of poor quality -- for example, the section on "Teaching and Beliefs" happens to mention only one of his beliefs, i.e. the most sensational one, about the end of the world, but does not even briefly summarize his entire theology and belief system (e.g. he is a strict predestinationist, has a theology of history that includes the "end of the Church age", and so on). Furthermore, people who are his cult followers or "true believers" keep messing up the page. So I think the issue is to produce a fair and high-quality article, not to delete it. Jjshapiro (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  I'd suspect that the vandalism comes from both sides. I doubt it was one of his followers that introduced the erroneous claim that the lunar month is 44.53059 days instead of the correct value of 29.53059. This survived in the article for a month, so it definitely needs more established editor eyes. GRBerry 20:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the misinformation may not be vandalism as per wiki's definition, but rather inaccurate information insufficiently investigated or confirmed by the posters/authors. Nevertheless, with that said, I too agree with your comment generally. Maybe it is helpful to note that data from the Bible, a Holy Book (spiritual), is confirmed by the Holy Bible itself, and consequently, false data is revealed by the Holy Bible itself. Secular sourced data may reflect or contain Biblical data, but such sources may be found lacking consistency, and reliability, particularly in comparison to authentic Biblical sourced data. The Holy Bible cautions people to trust only the Holy Bible to reveal the absolute truth by God's mercy (ref. Psalm 119, John 17:17 "...thy word is truth.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by

76.247.115.33 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment if the information cant be sufficiently referenced in reliable 3rd party sources, it should be removed. If sufficient references cant be found to support the notability of this person, then the article needs to be deleted. Currently there is one reference that isn't either one of his books or a press release from his company.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

CommentA valid point you make and yet the unbiased, sufficient references are found in the Bible as Camping's publications identify explicitly. Wiki policy/guidelines help determine whether or not being the founder and owner of approx. 160 broadcast outlets broadcasting to the world (vitually all continents) is sufficient notability. My view is this alone, Camping is notable, regardless whether or not a person or some people may like or dislike the message being conveyed by the network founded and run by Camping. Yes i still sayKEEP because Camping is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.115.33 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment It's pretty clear that the concensus is that Camping is notable, however there still seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about Wikipedia reference policy. The current article is not sufficiently referenced. As Campings writings are his interpretation of the Bible, references to the Bible should be considered a convenience to the reader and not something that fullfills WP:BIO. Sources other than Camping or the Bible itself should be added to this article to avoid any concerns with WP:RS or WP:POV. While view that the Bible is fact is a point of view shared by many people, but it is just that, a single point of view. There are many other points of view across the spectrum, especially on this topic. Wikipedia publishes all significant points of view which are verifiable with reliable 3rd party sources. Please read WP:NPOV.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• As you've indicated, this article doesn't have an abundant number of references, but the number may be sufficient. A person who spends life not promoting oneself, but rather proclaiming the message of Christ Jesus, will have the Bible as support for every aspect of life. Intrinsically, the Biblical messages Camping proclaims are not subject to multiple interpretations, though our nature often attempts to deny this fact. It is probably best to include a few reasonable references (i.e. reasonably balanced, accurate, biographic/encyclopedic in quality) rather than seek to build this article in other ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.115.33 (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The controversy generated by his publications is notable. However, there is also considerable bias against him personally as a result. Understandably, anyone in the churches will not like Camping's findings, and other individuals not understanding Biblical testimony will be troubled by his publications. Personally, I have studied the Bible sufficiently to know the conclusions he reached are Biblically accurate and factual. Note, it is not in accordance with Wiki's purpose or policy, as I have read, to have advocates against Camping's work attempt to use Camping's Wiki page as a platform for promoting their arguments against his works and/or person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.115.33 (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Question. This is a question, rather than a vote, because I don't know enough to know where and how to raise this question. Camping's notability is based on his distinctive views, his following, and his network of radio and TV stations. It seems that for this reason, he should be covered by Wikipedia, I would say much more so than many people of questionable notability who have articles about them on Wikipedia (e.g. members of minor rock bands, bit-part actors on TV, and so on). Although the present article is really lousy, and doesn't even have a summary of his views, it wouldn't be hard to produce such a summary, because he presents these views all the time on TV and radio and in his publications. And there are easily accesible critiques of his views, especially from various Christian churches (given that Camping says that now all churches are under the rule of Satan and people should leave them). Currently the article isn't even written from a POV or the POV of his following, since it doesn't even state his views; nor does it really represent his critics. Wouldn't it be legitimate to have an article that had a minimum of biographical information and that summarized both his teachings, available precisely from his documents and broadcasts, and the criticisms thereof? I've looked at one or two other Wikipedia articles on televangelists, and they are full of "citation needed" editorial comments. Shouldn't we just do the same thing with the Camping article? Jjshapiro (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. He is definitely notable, but I agree that the current article is of fairly low-quality. This is a start in finding independent sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment if the concensus is to keep this article (and it's looking that way so far), then this article shoudn't be treated any differently than any other. It will have to meet the same standards for citation and verification. It's currently very poorly referenced. WP:PROVEIT suggests that the right thing to do isn't to tag unreferenced material, it's to remove it. This will eliminate a large part of the article as it stands. Can those indicating that the article should kept add a reference or two to the existing article?--Rtphokie (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment In response to your concerns, stipulations, and question, I have started the process of referencing the information with reliable 3rd party sources, especially stories about Camping from Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal. There is quite a bit more to do, but I probably won't be able to return to it for a week or so. Jjshapiro (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Wall Street Journal is not a credible source for evaluating a Bible teacher, but it can evaluate commercial or business aspects of the Radio Media industry. Associated Press also lacks credibility in matters of spiritual teachings, as does any denominational church in this Biographical Wiki site (since they will simply label Camping's Biblical findings a "wrong" or "heretical.") Object, unbiased citations of encyclopedic nature suitable for living person biography are the references needed. Third part "slanders" or ed/op opinions, no matter the sources, are best suited for publications and forums promoting such views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.115.33 (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't understand what you mean by "evaluating" a bible teacher. Encyclopedia articles shouldn't be evaluating people. Evaluation is a point of view. Wall St. Journal and Associated Press are there simply for fact-checking, i.e. to provide precisely, as you say, "objective, unbiased" material. The articles I cited are simply documenting facts, in response to Wikipedia editors' concerns that material from Family Radio is biased and under the control of Harold Camping or from those who attack him, and Wikipedia needs objective, third-party fact checking, which is what responsible journalism puts a lot of time and effort into. The whole point of this article, as with others on Wikipedia, is to present material about Camping in a neutral mode, which of course should include both his beliefs and, at least briefly, some major criticisms of them. But the article shouldn't be written either from his perspective or attacking it, just reporting on what his perspective is and what major attacks there are, as with all Wikipedia articles. For example, the Wall St. Journal and Associated Press don't consider Camping heretical, they merely report that some other people do. That's the same perspective from which the Wikipedia article needs to be written, except that the Wikipedia article needs to be more serious, substantive, and faithful to the actual content of Camping's views (and, although only briefly, those who criticize him). If you eliminate reliable 3d-party references, the net result is that the article will be deleted. Assuming good intentions on your part, I will assume that you are not a Camping enemy who is deliberately trying to have the article deleted through eliminating the references. I prefer to believe that you are a responsible Wikipedia editor who is trying to make a good article. In that case, leave in references from reliable sources and try to find additional ones. Jjshapiro (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I agree completely: Encyclopedic material should not evaluate but this Camping site is the most "non-encylopedic" site I've ever encountered. It evaluates, measures, casts aspersions in ways that are amazing. If anyone had read his books objectively, they would see much of the 3-rd party "perspectives" are not noteworthy even from the "respectable" sources. This also is quite a phenomina. I am still look for a balanced, well articulated viewpoints or counterpoints but the Bible (the basis of Camping's conclusions)has supported the conclusions of Camping and refuted the "perspectives" of all critics posted here or I can find. I wish you the best in finding some good reference and I think you efforts are sincere but we can't force "good" references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.115.33 (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Please excuse my typos...I am typing late into the night without my eye-glasses. The best to you in your hunt...maybe this site can be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.115.33 (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - being the other side of the Atlantic, I am not qualified to comment on the subject's notability. However, assuming that is established. The question becomes one of providing reliable sources on his views. Since his POV is the subject matter, his own publications become a PRIMARY source (even if self-published); there could hardly be a better source! Newspapers are potentially a reliable secondary source, though one cannot believe everyhting that one reads in the papers. This of course begs the question as to whether his views are right; for that I would suggest that published condemnations by other theologians should be cited. However, the correctness of his views (which I consider heretical - my POV) is hardly in point. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • From one of the two sides of the Atlantic, I propose we conclude the rightness of Camping's teachings can only be affirmed or denied by the Holy Bible. As you've recognized and identified, theologians are human beings. Consequently, theologians also cannot assist in assessing "correctness of his views" beyond expressing another POV respectfully. This biographical site, in the past, has been treated often as a "forum" for expressing counterviews and other interpretations not of Camping but of other's POV of Camping. Emphasizing controversy and disagreement, I suggest again, is not the purpose of a biographical site generally. In this particular case, the debate, controversy and contention is really directed to findings revealed in God's Word, not actually Camping who is just another notable human being. Encyclopedic texts -- quite well at times -- tend towards being as objective and neutral as possible based on verifiable and balanced facts available. I do see there may be hope that this wiki site will be preserved as a biographical/encyclopedic site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.115.33 (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, you are very wrong here; fundamentally missing the purpose of this project and the article in specific. Wikipedia's mission is to be an encyclopedia. One of the key content rules here is that all articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. This means that we are required to include the views to which you are objecting, provided that they are significant views from reliable sources. We are explicitly not allowed to have an article written solely from the perspective that Camping is correct. If you want something like that, either go create a page on Camping's website or go write an opinion article at wikichristian - but even they won't let that be the primary article on Camping; the Information article will have to cover the criticism from other Christians. I won't take a position on whether or not we will have any article, but in the long run I can guarantee you that we won't have an article written under the assumptions you are using. GRBerry 03:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
      • This is a biographical site and encyclopedic. I sense you maybe overlooking the biographical nature of this site. Objective biographical data is only possible if the source actually knows the person. Camping, to be an authentic Bible teacher, would have to be a Holy person (by Biblical reference, we know this). Therefore, only a Holy person, a fellow brother or sister in Christ (i.e. "saved soul"), is qualified to provide an objective (NPOV) of Camping, biographically speaking. Note: Some believe a theological degree or a church membership is all that is needed to be assumed "saved" which is another matter of contention and dispute but not really biographical data. As a notable person, Camping is in Wiki. As a Holy person (Bible teacher), he is in this world. From the Bible, we know all souls God redeems are to testify and proclaim the Gospel of Christ Jesus whether people like or dislike, agree or disagree with the message. Camping does this and many don't agree, but some do agree with the message; this is an Camping wiki site, biographical fact. I appreciate your comments and the opportunity to bring this fact to this forum.

• Keep. He's one of the single best known figures in the evangelical subculture, owns tons of radio stations, and has been around for decades. How is notability even a question? Carlo (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep His voice is heard daily in most major radio markets in the United States. Frankly, the submitter that suggested that this be deleted should be embarrassed for not doing more research about this. -Nodekeeper (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: The subject of this article pertains to a wide segment of United States mass-media for a specific sub-genre of broadcast programming. This deletion proposal suggests a basic unfamiliarity with the purpose and application of WP:N. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Withdrawn notability has been established sufficiently in this discussion. Recent edits have improved the article significantly as well, especially improving it's WP:NPOV. It could still use some additional 3rd party references with 3/4 of the references in the current article coming from Camping's books or press releases from his company.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2008 (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.