Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia King (evangelist)

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 delete. Seems like there is consensus that the article does not meet notability criteria. As for Graham11's note moving Patricia King (trade unionist) to Patricia King needs its own move request, I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia King (evangelist)[edit]

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

She is not notable. Her role in Belize can simply be added to LGBT_rights_in_Belize#Church_opposition_to_decriminalization. There are no reliable third-party sources specifically about her. Zigzig20s (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have remove the SPLC reference, as it did not really support the guilt-by-association claim made in the article. As a result, the article now has no references. St Anselm (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, page 8 of the SPLC report says she/her church supported Belize Action, an anti-LGBT organization in Belize. But she doesn't need her own article for that.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's all it says. It doesn't say she is an anti-LGBT activist herself. It doesn't even say that she "has supported anti-LGBT discrimination" (as the article used to say) - merely that her organization has supported an organization that supported it. St Anselm (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC are a bunch of leftist hate mongers who try to silence the voices of those who believe in man/woman marriage and should never be used as reliable sources for anything. They are one the side of people who engage in shooting of security guards at Christian organizations and call for the bombing of Christian places of worship. There is no reason to give their hate campaigns any standing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. St Anselm (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assume by SPLC that you mean Southern Poverty Law Center? I would not call them "hate mongers" by any means. They are specifically against hate groups. Wikipedia's page on them says that: "It is noted for its legal victories against white supremacist groups, its legal representation for victims of hate groups, its classification of militia movement and other extremist organizations, and its educational programs that promote tolerance." I am pretty sure that removing the SPLC from the article was an incorrect move, because they can be seen as a reliable, if potentially biased, source. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What we have here is basically a PR résumé for a person who exists, rather than an encyclopedia article about a person who satisfies any specific notability rule. Prior to being tackled by the clean 'n scrub union, this was based entirely on her own primary source content about herself with the sole exception of the SPLC citation — and the problem with the SPLC reference isn't that the SPLC are "hatemongers" (which is not a claim that would pass even the most cursory test for WP:NPOV), but that it didn't even properly verify the content being cited to it. Nothing left here now is a strong claim of notability, none of it is properly sourced at all, and Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which a person is entitled to keep an unsourced or primary sourced article just because she exists. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. And as an aside, the argument that the SPLC are "hate mongers" is laughable at best. Graham (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: If this article is deleted, Patricia King probably should be too and Patricia King (trade unionist) moved accordingly. Graham (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Her main role seems to be as leading Christian Services Association, which appears to have several offices, implying that this is not a one-woman ministry. I would be happier if that article existed, which it does not. In the circumstances, my view has to be neutral. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, an article about that organization could absolutely be created, if it can be reliably sourced over WP:ORG. But leading an organization isn't an automatic inclusion freebie that gets King in the door as a separate topic, if her article is entirely unsourced. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2016 (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.