Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Pitts (preacher)

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 (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pitts (preacher)

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

There is just enough information about rank and stature in this article to make any extremely borderline but none-the-less present claim for notability (albeit barely), but on the whole I don't think that is gonna save the article from its advertisement-centered construction or from the number of people here who are going to consider the achievements of the preacher to be below the CSD-A7 line. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Overseas a group of 26 churches[1] owns a radio station[2] and appears to be a book author[3]. According to this article he is one of only 300 bishops in a 5 million member religious organization and there are plenty of local sources to create a substantive page. CSD appears to be motivated by displeasure over the results of an old BLPN string, which is how I started watchlisting the page. His arrest record was removed, because much of it had to do with speculation or claims he was acquitted for. I do remember thinking that perhaps not quite all of it should have been deleted, but calling it an AfD-worthy advert because it is missing is a gross exaggeration and many claims on Talk of NPOV and sourcing violations are not actually true. CorporateM (Talk) 01:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - anyone who would call this article an ad either has no experience with what actual ads masquerading as articles look like, or is hopelessly biased on the subject. The article is actually quite neutral. You also might want to look up what WP:CSD A7 means - ANY plausible claim of notability (of which there are many) is sufficient to stop A7 deletion. Now, on to the only relevant question: is Pitts notable? Yes, he is due to significant RS coverage (several listed in article already, otehrs found here). Incidentally, the vast majority of bishops are notable (in churches where the term is used to mean someone overseeing multiple churches), so it is usually a waste of time to nominate them for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is kept, it should be moved to Michael Pitts (pastor). St Anselm (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Quite possibly renamed. Oversight of a network of churches and his episcopal ordination, in a context where this is unusual, point to notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2015 (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.