Talk:Zola Levitt

Article Incubator/Zola Levitt
afd closed as incubate here: Articles for deletion/Zola Levitt. i asked closing admin about what needed improvement here: User_talk:King_of_Hearts. he was helpful, as can be seen, but i'm kind of at a loss as to how to make it look less like an obituary. perhaps someone has an idea or two? &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I thought you had pretty much gotten rid of the "memorial" issues before the close; but I may be the wrong one to ask because I didn't think those aspects were particularly noticeable in the first place (other than the unnecessarily extended discussion of his cause of death, which you properly deleted). Two things I might suggest are (1) restoring a more limited version of the biographical infobox and (2) adding some more references from scholarly works.  My editing time is a bit limited today, but here are some of the additional references that could be worked into the text:


 * American Christians and Islam: evangelical culture and Muslims from the colonial period to the age of terrorism by Thomas S. Kidd, Princeton University Press, 2009, ISBN 9780691133492, p. 132
 * Evangelizing the chosen people: missions to the Jews in America, 1880-2000 by Yaakov Shalom Ariel, UNC Press Books, 2000, ISBN 9780807848807, p. 285 (and possibly elsewhere)
 * Holy hills of the Ozarks: religion and tourism in Branson, Missouri by Aaron K. Ketchell, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007, ISBN 9780801886607, p.166
 * The Museum of Broadcast Communications encyclopedia of radio, Fitzroy Dearborn, 2004, ISBN 9781579584320, p. 787 (unfortunately only a partial view of this one is available at Google Books
 * There's more, especially for someone who can get through the pay walls at GScholar and GBooks.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * excellent work! i started incorporating some of that material, and will continue as time permits. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I missed something, but the piece as it is seems like a decent beginning and fairly neutral. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks, to me too, which is why i thought others might be able to point out places for improvement. anyway, after i get a little more stuff in there, i'll propose that it be moved back into article space.  there seems to be an incubator template which puts it up for review.  also, @Arxiloxos, i got stuff from all those books in there except two.  i don't see much that's useful in the branson book, and, like you said, the encyclopedia of broadcasting is too snippetty in gbooks to use.  it looks like it'll be quite useful, though, with info about levitt's radio show and fcc neutrality rules, so i ordered it on interlibrary loan.  it should be here soon, and i'll see if it'll help.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like good progress is being made. I can see nothing to trouble me with the article as it stands. maybe more information is available on his televangelism? Rich Farmbrough, 12:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC).


 * i couldn't find anything in rs other than what i've already included. do you have any suggestions?&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessment
Article incubation assessment


 * 1) Does the article establish notability of the subject ?
 * A. It does not yet appear to meet the general notability guideline: Unable to locate assertion of notability. Suitable for further incubation assuming such an assertion can be made. Assessment suspended for three months. Dualus (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * B. It meets any relevant subject specific guideline:
 * 1) Is it verifiable?
 * A. It contains references to sources:
 * B. There are inline citations of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. There is no original research:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * A. It is a fair representation without bias:
 * B. It is written in a non-promotional manner:
 * 1) It does not contain unverifiable speculation:
 * 2) Pass, Fail or Hold for 7 days:

. Dualus (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Move from incubator
I know that as a major contributor I'm not supposed to de-incubate this, but no one's looked at it in over a year, and the only editor to evaluate it is now blocked as a sockpuppet. Really, the guy is notable. If you disagree with my move I will even do the work of nominating it for deletion so we can see how the community feels. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for de-incubating this. I'm the webmaster for Zola Levitt's website, levitt.com.  We've been trying to get to working on editing this for awhile.  I can help confirm any factual information as needed.  There are several problems now that we will try to fix. Zola was very influential and notable in the Messianic Judaism community. He started a TV show that's been on the air for over 25 years. I don't understand the question of notability. Ghartwig (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * (I left a note on your talk page too) There's no question of notability. Please take some time to read WP:COI and learn how to edit with a conflict of interest.  Please don't start fixing errors in the article, but rather point them out on the talk page and supply high quality secondary sources that support the changes you'd like to make and leave it to uninvolved editors to make the edits to the article.  Ask me here or on my talk page if you have questions about this. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I will read the link and will gather some info and post here.  All the references and links to Messianic Judaism were removed.  I think those need to be added back.  Also, the references to a church need to be changed.  He founded a Christian ministry, not a church.  Also, a bit weasel-worded section on the "goal is to convert Jews to evangelical Christianity." Better than earlier, though.  But, later... Ghartwig (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Even for obvious factual errors sources are necessary. If the facts are uncontroversial then sources related to the subject, e.g. the ministry's web site, are acceptable (see WP:SPS) but for anything that anyone might dispute it's necessary to have secondary sources independent of the subject (see WP:RS).&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)