Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Murray


 * 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 d e lete. east. 718 at 00:02, January 17, 2008

Arnold Murray
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

BLP of a person of very marginal notability; even the pre-stub version didn't do too well to assert notability other than being a midday televangelist on some unnamed stations. Will (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My opinion is to delete it because the article attracts too many hotheads and loyalists that change it and make it very POV. It should not be deleted for the reason of marginal notability, if you use that reason then there are many, many articles that should be deleted. Examples are other tele-evangelists, there is an article for each cast member of the show hi-5, a show that is less notable than arnold murray, there is an article on ray wilkerson who worked at a tv station in north carolina, and the list goes on.65.87.185.73 (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Accorrding to that logic we should delete every controversial article on wikipedia. I'm not sure if you've looked at the George W. Bush article, but that attracts more than its fare share of hotheads, loyalists, and vandals. If you look at the edit history you will notice there are usually at least 5 vandalism reverts and additions per day. The Bush article isn't the only one, a list of controversial articles can be found here. The article just needs to be watched to ensure that POV doesn't get pushed. --Nn123645 (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per
 * WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT - There are millions of non-notable preachers, only notable ones should be mentioned. There is no such thing as "marginal notability." Something either is notable or it isn't.
 * WP:RS and WP:V - There are no reliable sources and references.
 * WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE - This article seemed to have been created to support this man's religious beliefs.
 * WP:NOTABILITY from wikipedia, 'The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice" '. There are many articles on this site of people far less notable then AM.  If that reason is used then many articles need deletion.  It is being unfairly applied here.
 * WP:NOT from wikipedia, 'Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover'. That is a reason to keep the article, not delete it.
 * WP:RS from wikipedia, 'Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'. The article had reliable and unreliable sources but information was deleted based on whether it was negative.
 * WP:V from wikipedia, '"Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source'. The article has verfiable sources and would need to be cut down to include those items only.
 * WP:FRINGE from wikipedia, 'We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view'. This does not apply here.
 * WP:NPOV from wikipedia, 'The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources'. The is does not apply, the issue is not conflicting verfiable sources, the issue is information is deleted by sanitizing teams.Tss8071 (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP - The arguments above especially apply in this case.


 * However, anonymous user above: "the article attracts too many hotheads and loyalists" appears to be an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. See appeal to consequences and slippery slope. Zenwhat (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP is the only reason that could apply. WP:BLP says the article should be written to do no harm.  AM wants certain things in his background hidden and when they are included in the article, well sourced, sanitizing teams delete it.Tss8071 (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel things should be done for the right reason and a team of people sanatizing the AM article makes the article worthless. Admins were already involved, another, more experienced person worked on it to wiki-fy it more and when he was done, the information was deleted again.  The same team deleted the article on 'roy gillaspie' down to one sentence because he is mentioned on AM's website.


 * The only way notability can work into this is to ask if it is worth it? For an article on George Bush or Albert Einstein, you sort of have to keep those to be considered legitimate but for arnold murray, once a team has been assigned to sanitize negative information, it is probably not worth using up the disk space.  The article only becomes misleading and fairly worthless.


 * You wrote that the article was written to support one person's religious beliefs. That is not true.  The article was written a long time ago (years) and has gone back and forth from very negative and unsourced claims to reading like an advertisement.  When the article got to some reasonable state, the sanatizing teams came through and wiped out all negative info and did the same with any articles pointed to by the AM article.Tss8071 (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The above and others keep referring to one person's beliefs. The article had many contributors over a period of a year.  However, there seems to be a team of people whose job it is to go through and sanitize any negative information about arnold murray.  That is why the article should be deleted.


 * Their original claim was the sources were a fabrication to smear arnold murray. When the information was sourced and verified, they deleted it anyway.


 * If it is going to be deleted then do it for the right reason.


 * My vote is delete it because when these teams of people are done sanatizing the article is essentially worthless.Tss8071 (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that a substantial amount of commentary by this user has been moved to the talk page for this discussion, because the commentary is more about Wikipedia in general and does not make germane points about the article in question. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please also note that that, based on the history of Arnold Murray, it is abundantly clear that this user is the same as User:65.87.185.73, who has already !voted. Both accounts have been blocked for sockpuppetry, harassment, and vandalism. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - please keep your comments brief or at least well-organized. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Zenwhat. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for the reasons given by Will and Zenwhat. Articles that are targets of vandalism should not be deleted because they are vandal-bait, if that policy was adopted the vandals would control Wikipedia.  However, the notability of this person is in question, we can't have a vanity page about every pastor in the US. --  At am a chat 17:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and write a proper article--not the spammy version or the sanitized one. To delete an article because it is under attack is wrong altogether. I don't want to judge notability until l see what sources can be found by neutral editors. Given the sort of thing he seems to say, probably people have written about it. (And  let other people comment as they choose here with criticizing them if  they take a little more space to do it than I would.)DGG (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a version of the article you had in mind, that fits WP:BIO or at least contains a germane RS? I don't think there are any reliable sources that confer notability, I flipped through the history and didn't see much that puts this guy into WP:BIO territory. If there's something I missed, can you link to it? --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes there are versions that fit WP:BIO but one would have to go way back in the history. Because the article is vandal-bait (good word to describe it, btw), the history has been inflated and I doubt anyone could find the proper article.Tss8071 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure there is any good prior version: that does not mean we cannot make one. DGG (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, but notability is an affirmative claim. "Maybe he's not non-notable" isn't a valid keep rationale. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. NN person. Tavix (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be deleted. I kept trying to remember this guy's name and I finally figured it out. Good old Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.16.226.249 (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * — 66.16.226.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -23:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)~


 * Delete - as it stands the article fails to meet WP:BIO, simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - The controversy surrounding the editing of this article is unfortunate; but this article does not meet WP:BIO and does not seem to have the potential to do so. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
I would like to open a more in depth discussion by first pointing out that I have now read the entire history of this article. My summary (without comment on the status of the article) is available on the talk page for this discussion.

Essentially, there are two problems with this article. The notability of this figure has never been established by reliable sources - the sources used in the article tend to have little or nothing to do with Murray, or have no weight in establishing his notability (e.g. his birth records). Secondly, the content of this article has never been encyclopedic - long unverified sections detailing his life, screenful after screenful of his teachings (expounded at length), etc. I can honestly say that of all the content that has ever existed in this article, the stub we have no reflects most (if not all) of what's been included previously that has been encyclopedic, verified, and relevant. For example, this version of the article contains most of the content that's ever been included. Look at it, and consider how much of it is relevant to Wikipedia (pay attention to how much of it is sourced properly, as well as how much of it is significant or worth mentioning). The external links do not establish notability, and many fail WP:EL flat out. As for the sources, I'll duplicate the list from the talk page here:


 * NASA website : Used to talk about the "missing day" - no mention of Murray
 * Shepherd's Chapel is registered as a non-profit under the "Soldiers of the Cross" name... :A public record indicating nonprofit status of something related to Murray Does not establish notability in any way.
 * County Data : similar public records verifying minutia about organisations affiliated with Murray
 * The Chosin Few : self-published, fails WP:RS flat out, and it's not about Murray
 * / Kaplan, Jeffrey (2000). Encyclopedia of White Power- A Sourcebook on the Radical Racist Right. Rowman Altamira, 120. ISBN 0742503402. : used only to verify that someone mentioned in passing in the article was, verfiably, a white supremacist
 * Barkun, Michael (1997). Religion and the Racist Right- The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement. UNC Press, 54. ISBN 0807846384. : ditto
 * / Image:Arnold murray ministers license.jpg : public recored used in conjunction with the two sources above to speak to minutia about Murray's connections to white power movements (gross violation of BLP and WP:SYN)
 * a list of audio tapes he has produced can be found in the Wilcox Collection of the University of Kansas.KU Library Catalog (Search for "Arnold Murray") : tapes don't appear to be published, primary sources do not necessarily establish notability, is this even the same Arnold Murray? The tape is called "Let Me Call You Sweetheart."

Based on that, I see absolutely no evidence that this article was, is, or every will be something that merits inclusion on Wikipedia, per WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:BLP, etc. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Precisely, that's what I've been trying to say all along, but you put it much better than I did. Anyway, if this article is going to be used as a platform to smear Murray, then it should be deleted, unless the Mods can manage to keep it in an encyclopedia format, free of someone's personal agenda. Arnold Murray is a notable figure, he has over a million of viewers and listeners, so I believe this article should remain visible in the proper format. 208.127.154.159 (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, have you contributed to this discussion before? I do not see contributions from you in this discussion, so I'm not sure I can figure out where you've been "saying [anything] all along." Wait, I just checked the history of the page - you're the one who'd been removing the lengthy unsourced content and original research (e.g. here). While that content should be removed, and this article (as far as I can tell) should be deleted entirely, I don't think your rationale is correct - it is not in agreement with mine or what I just said. Articles that are "smear platforms" should be fixed, not deleted. However, we have a much better reason to delete this: WP:BIO, the community accepted marker for notability. If he has been noted in reliable, third-party sources for having a large audience, then that may help the case to keep the article, but I can't find any evidence (reliable sources or otherwise) stating that he has any particularly large number of listeners. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And that is exactly the problem, 'he has a million viewers'. That can not be reliably sourced and only makes the article vandal-bait.Tss8071 (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm for deleting it. Better than having an article riddled with labels like "white supremacist" this and that, when the man is clearly an anti-racist. But In terms of viewership and listeners on the radio, that can be checked out through ratings. 208.127.154.159 (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to find a reliable source for the ratings 208.127.154.159 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As noted by other user, WP:BIO says,:


 * 'A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.'


 * AM has none of that, there are no published third party sources where he has been the subject.Tss8071 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Verifiable information, good, bad or indifferent, speaks for itself. My apologies in advance for the length of this post!


 * WP:BLP - I believe this article can be re-written to conform to Wikipedia's policies on NPOV, verifiability, and no original research. Details about other notable associates (e.g. Goff, Allen, etc.) can be addressed in separate articles.


 * WP:V "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves" (e.g. Murray's claim that he is a member of the Chosin Few posted on his website). For example, in the Wikipedia entry on Kenneth Copeland, the following quote points to Kenneth Copeland's website: "According to Kenneth Copeland Ministries, it is also actively involved in ministry to prison inmates in 23 countries."


 * WP:N - Notability is subjective. I believe Murray satisfies the criteria of notability based on the following:


 * According to Back Chanel Media,, a free web-based media search engine that is one of the largest dynamically generated TV listings databases, Shepherd's Chapel is broadcast in approximately 389 media platforms which includes 9 of the top 10 Designated Market Areas (DMA) with the exception of New York city. I couldn't find any ratings on the site but they do list the number of households in the top 10 DMAs which totals approximately 35,000,000.


 * To try to gain some perspective on this data, I'll use the Kenneth Copeland example again. According to Back Channel Media, Copland's show, Believer's Voice of Victory, is on the air an average of 400 30-minute blocks each week. Shepherd's Chapel is on the air an average of 900 30-minute blocks each week.


 * The Shepherd's Chapel website receives an average of 900,000 unique visitors each week according to Alexa.org


 * Articles about Murray and the Shepherd's Chapel have been published by the Associated Press, U.S.A. Today and the Arkansas Democrat Gazette among others. Transcripts of these articles can be found by searching databases like Lexis Nexis, NetLibrary.org and the USA Today Archives. Some examples include...


 * "$50,000 gift answers need of Bible class" John Rice, Gazette Staff, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, (Little Rock, AR), Sunday, February 18, 1990


 * "GRAVETTE - Rev. Arnold Murray says he raised $20,000 through documentary on National Christian Network to help school district fight lawsuit challenging voluntary weekly Bible classes at elementary schools..." USA Today, section: News, pg. 08.A, August 22, 1989


 * "BENTONVILLE, Ark. (AP) - Vehicles used exclusively for church business, even airplanes, cannot be taxed by the county, a Benton County judge says." Associated Press, Friday, October 28, 1994


 * Murray/Shepherd's Chapel is mentioned in two books:


 * In the book The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active New Religions, Sects, and Cults, Shepherd's Chapel is listed as a "Christian Identity" group. pg. 325,  Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin, New York Rosen Publishing Group, 1997. ISBN 0823925862


 * Murray is mentioned in Loretta Lynn's memoir, Still Woman Enough: "I want to thank Pastor Murray for his friendship and, most specifically, for his love and support." Hyperion Books (April 3, 2002) ISBN 0786866500


 * According to published reports - Murray was in a relationship with Loretta Lynn:


 * "Widow Loretta Lynn is back in the arms of the preacher she once loved and lost" written by Laurie Campbell, The National Examiner May 1,2006.


 * "SINGER'S NAZI LOVE: WIDOWED country singer Loretta Lynn is planning to marry a neo-Nazi TV preacher." The Sunday Mail, pg 18, December 9, 1999 (published in the UK)


 * In my opinion, the Murray "gun video" falls in the category of an "Internet meme" and should be considered a viral video/Internet phenomena due to its online popularity. The video is noted on the Wikipedia page for "God Stuff" which was a segment on The Daily Show.


 * Lastly, Newsletters written by Murray when he was the pastor of Church of Jesus Christ (Gravette, Ark.) are archived at the Wilcox Collection of Contemporary Political Movements. (Call Number: RH WL Eph 639) 1978.

Just my two cents! Fulldisclosure07 (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * — Fulldisclosure07 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You've missed it. You're citing:
 * a self-published, unreliable website
 * alexa ratings of Murray's church's website
 * two tabloid newspapers
 * archives of self-published newsletters written by Murray
 * youtube memes
 * the dedication page of a book
 * None of those are remotely reliable or Wikipedia-worty (okay, alexa is semi-reliable, but irrelevant). Beyond that, you cite an encyclopedia of sects and cults in which there's a mention of his church. The scope of Wikipedia is not so narrow, and this is not an article about his cult church, it's an article about him. Besides that single reliable source, you're citing are random minor news reports about church fundraisers and minor court decisions. No source here meets WP:RS except those that are insubstantial coverage of news events (Wikipedia is not a newspaper). You say that you can meet WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS, but none of this does so. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:00, 16 January 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.