Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian evangelist scandals


 * 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 16:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Christian evangelist scandals

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnessecary list, obvious POV fork. RucasHost 13:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for violating WP:NPOV by establishing a pattern of misconduct by a certain group of people. The information should be mentioned in each individual's article. Shalom Hello 13:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - An article whose subject is a POV is perfectly legitimate if the "point-of-view subject is presented neutrally". Although this might not be the case here, the article could be retuned to be more of a neutral presentation of these controversies.  Maybe "Christian evangelist controversies" would be a less biased title?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with User:Shalom. I don't think changing the title alone will help, the idea behind this article is fundamentally flawed. We don't have Atheist controversies or Islamic scandals articles, and for good reason. Likewise, we shouldn't have a Christian evangelist scandals article either. The content can be merged into the articles about the various evangelists mentioned in the article. --RucasHost 14:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to check Controversies related to Islam and Muslims. I'm not aware of any scandals related to Atheism though.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Manticore hit it on the nose. Controversies related to Islam and Muslims is a perfect example.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 *  Delete  per WP:SYNTH - You cant take a bunch of unrelated facts and tie them up to paint a broad picture.  Mention these in the appropriate articles about the person, but not all together like this to make a point Corpx 14:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can do that. Such Synthesis is appropriate, and commonly used in the real world.  The objection is to synthesis on Wikipedia as opposed to using existing synthesis on the subject on Wikipedia.  And that's where the difference lies.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be one thing if there were articles doing the synthesis themselves, and covering all the subjects in one article.  That would be acceptable, but this is a bunch of individual stories that are not connected to each other.  Corpx 01:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are articles doing the synthesis themselves. I did a search and found plenty.  If the current contents of this page aren't good enough, it's a cleanup issue.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Which articles are you basing the synthesis on? Corpx 03:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ones like . These indicate just in the brief sample bits that there's a coverage of the overall subject out there.  Probably some books as well.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The only one I could read was the NYT one and it does indeed link 5 (the majority) of the people in the article; however, I do not think this should be a blank check to keep adding scandals as they happen. Corpx 05:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A reasonable concern, but one that's a editing issue, not a deletion one. FrozenPurpleCube 05:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. It appears to be sourced, albeit one-sided as well. The facts are not "unrelated" as they all have three things in common ("Chrisitians", "evangelists", and "scandalous behaviour").Vice regent 15:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By unrelated, I meant that the events are not related to each other. Corpx 15:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Corpx, would it not be a fair compromise to rename this article "List of Christian evangelist scandals", similar to "List of converts to Christianity", that contains unrelated conversions?Vice regent 15:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - controversy articles are not necessarily POV forks. This is just a list of similar occurrences and their circumstances.  I think the sources are decent, and not one-sided -- how do you balance things were the people involved don't do much more than confess their sins and beg forgiveness from God and their former congregations? &larr;BenB4 15:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The events aren't related, but the people are.  Evangelist scandals are a frequent subject in pop culture, and are commonly referred to collectively.  The article is somewhat POV; that means it needs to be fixed, not deleted. Cap'n Walker 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as there is enough coverage of the subject (as opposed to the individual scandals: to tell me there's potential for an article.  I have no objection to renaming or seeing elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to a neutral title. `'Míkka 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Manticore. Edison 20:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the reasoning of Shalom and Corpx above. Deor 22:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Almost all of these are notable. Jesus Himself preached about hypocrites who made a show of how religious they were, but who didn't walk the walk.  Mandsford 00:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, do not retitle No better title for a list of Christian Evangelicals involved in scandals, and theres enough of those of note to more than justify coverage of it as a phenomena. Any individual POV issues should be dealt with individually, and strictly, since WP:BIO applies, but since this article has had a lot of attention already from people looking to delete things under WP:BIO that shouldn't be a probelm. Artw 03:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, article is well-referenced, and the topic receives much coverage in the mainstream media. --musicpvm 04:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Very strong Delete We have enough POV and BLP difficulties with individual articles. If the subject is thought encyclopedic, then the paragraphs on individual people must go. But there is not the slightest basis for that at this tim--no references are provided for that, and no discussion. Personally, I think it is speedy as G10, article primarily devoted to disparage the subject. DGG (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if this is an attack page, I'd suggest replacing it with a stub instead of deleting. The subject itself is still notable and reasonable for an article. And in case you didn't see, I provided references above.   FrozenPurpleCube 11:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Question What is the point in the paragraphs on the individual people, when we have articles explaining the circumstances more fully and in the detail required for BLP, unlike the brief mentions here with minimal sourcing? It's hard enough doing NPOV for BLP without trying to get it into a single paragraph. DGG (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I think that the page pretty much needs a rewrite from the top myself. FrozenPurpleCube 18:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Apparently I stubbed this article, though its been so long I dont remember ... let me look at the history... January 2003! No wonder. Im sure everyone has thus far said everything there is to say, though I'd like to see the mischaracterisations ("attack page[!!]") beaten down a little bit. But the subject is no doubt notable, even if the title seems a bit clumsy. Similarly, I find the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases title to be a bit unncessarily focused on one particular religious denomination. Apparently theres some research to back this up:
 * "Philip Jenkins, an Episcopalian and Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State University, published the 1996 book Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis in which he claims that the Catholic Church is being unfairly singled out by a secular media which he claims fails to highlight similar sexual scandals in other religious groups, such as the Anglican Communion, various Protestant churches, and the Jewish and Islamic communities... ¡Read more!"
 * So... Anglicans aren't perfect either, I guess. As a suggestion, and I don't want people to jump on this (in favor or against), is to generalize the topic more - Sex scandals involving religious officials or something thelike. This comes as part of a general philosophy of extrapolating things to their most... general, and then filling in the details from the top down as things progress. Certainly I dont think it would be appropriate to say "the anti-Catholic article is fine, but the anti-Protestant" article is just an attack article." I would have to raise the big >>¡hypocrite!<< flag if anyone thought that. -Stevertigo 23:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Should be part of an article that includes other religions as well. Brusegadi 05:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename - perhpas to "disgraced televangelists". That appears to be the subject matter; of a few of those named do not fall into that category, they should be removed.  We cannot have articles on every Christian minister, who is sent to prison or found in bed with the wrong woman (or man), only those who are notable (or at least notorious).  Paedophile Priests are not relevant, as they are (generally) not evangelists: they are a separate problem, which should be dealt with in a separately.  Peterkingiron 22:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - This could be converted to a category, but it is acceptable as an article. It will need constant POV attention and general attention to its form.  I think the topic is valid by Manticore's argument.  flyingdics 14:14 16 August 2007
 * Delete violates WP:NPOV Harlowraman 23:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's nothing that specifically ties these events together, except their job, and as such, writing an article that encompasses them all is pointless. Move the mentioned scandals to a subcategory of Category:Religious scandals if you want (they're currently all in the parent category, as far as I could tell), that's a better way of handling topics that are loosely related in some way. - Bobet 09:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/listify/categorize. No point in creating an umbrella article if it inherently allows far less context and content than living people and neutrality policies allow.-Wafulz 12:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Televangelism  - the bios are a bad idea because the scandals are presented out of context and thus fail WP:BLP. Further, the selection of the people is arbitrary and thus also POV. Remove the bios and the uncited statements from the lead leaves nothing left; not even a stub. Where then to go? Well, these is a perfectly decent section at Televangelism. Sure it needs sourcing but it has good potential. That section should be allowed to develop organically and can be broken out again, into a separate article, if it grows too big as a normal editorial action. TerriersFan 16:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Bobet and Corpx's reasoning. Although the individual incidents are notable, the compilation is not.  I agree that it appears to be bordering on an attack page.  You could just as easily do a page called "Democratic sex scandals" or "Scandals by people named Bill."  The only reason to group these together is to suggest a noteworthy connection, and there just isn't one. JCO312 17:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just curious, do you find "Controversies related to Islam and Muslims" a noteworthy connection? If so, how is it "more" noteworthy than controversies related to Christian evangelism?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, a page about controversies that are related to Islam is one thing. If it were a page called Controversies by Muslims then I would say it should be deleted.  The difference is that there is no connection here between the scandals and Christian evangelism.  Again, if we went and found all the scandals with people named Bob and made that a list, would that be worth keeping? JCO312 04:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and make NPOV OR Convert to category Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I'm fine with it as long as we're giving other faiths' scandals/controversies, such as Islam, equal treatment. Listing all of it in Televangelism is somewhat inaccurate since not all of these people are televangelists.  Putting people in a category called Christian scandals is problematic to me, since although these people have been part of scandals, the people themselves are not the scandals. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Citi Cat   ♫  02:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I have a strong dislike of televangelists, and so ordinarily wouldn't comment here, but would privately enjoy any article that exposed the truth of their frauds. This article, however, is a literal "laundry list": it has only the loosest cohesion, with a paragraph about each, and no supporting text to provide a uniting purpose.  This makes it unencyclopedic, although a category serving the same purpose would work.  The article might be salvageable, but it would require major rewriting. Xoloz 03:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think there is necessarily a problem with and article about Christian evangelist scandals, as such scandals have helped influence the representation of Christian evangelists in popular media, and the overall perception of Christian evangelists in contemporary culture. I also don't object to the inclusion of a list in the article, as it is both relevant to the subject, and helps organization (if someone wants to find out more about a particular scandal, they can use the list). However, that being said, I do not support the current revision of the article, as the list goes into too much detail about each individual case. Yes, the article is about Christian evangelist scandals, but such case-by-case information belongs in the context of the perpetrators' respective biographies. It is inappropriate for the article to present case-by-case information about a group of otherwise unrelated individual Christian evangelist scandals as an acceptable substitute for an objective, well-rounded encyclopedia article. Simply listing scandals without providing any context regarding the subject is indeed a synthesis of information. However, because the subject is notable and has ample grounds for expansion, it should be kept, although it is imperative that the information causing the problem be removed, and simplified to the opening text, and the list be shortened to nothing more than a list of names. I may do this myself. Calgary 03:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This I have done. Calgary 03:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * * Looks like it got reverted, possibly becuase itg was a bit too much like a blanking. It seems like a pretty good direction to take the article in though. Artw 05:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus can be reached, indeed. What nonsense!  Is this going to happen everytime it's "default to keep" because no consensus has been reached?  I can't "assume good faith" considering that 22 people voted the first time around, when was it, last week?  This isn't good faith, this is being a sore loser.  If things don't go my way on a keep or delete, you know what I do?  I live with it, and so do the rest of us.  Grow up.  Mandsford 03:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This comment misunderstands what happens. I'd have to look at the history to see who acted for certain, but someone reviewed the discussion, determined that the group hadn't reached a consensus decision, and that there was a chance that further discussion might get us there.  So they extended the discussion.  These relistings are hardly unusual; we do about a handful a day.  The comment assumed instead that a new discussion had started.  GRBerry 04:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The rework article eliminates the NPOV issues, although it may need some clean-up to improve notability. --bfigura (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename and cleanup per the discussion. Reinistalk 08:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up to improve notability. The version I saw had no NPOV problems, although it lacked synthesis information and sources such as the ones dug up by FrozenPurpleCube to establish notability. The existence of those synthesis sources indicate that this article subject has good potential.--Yannick 16:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as we already have articles on the individuals involved and nothing more than the subjects' faith really links these particular scandals (or at least the author has not shown a deeper link). Biruitorul 19:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but modify The basic idea is sound, because there is great pop cultural interest. However, articles already exist on these people. Therefore I recommend to convert this to a list of names and any info move to the main articles.QueenAdelaide 06:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I continue to think this is a POV and BLP nightmare. The individual accusations in the articles are not all specifically sourced, the inclusion of these people is an indication of cultural and religious bias, & whether or not I share this bias is irrelevant.  How about Christian non-evangelist ministers who have been involved in scandals, or  non-Christian evangelist scandals, or separate group articles for Republicans/Decocrats caught in political scandals, as a group. What is really meant by this is notable hypocrites, with the implication that Evangelical Christian ministers are likely to be hypocrites to the degree that it is worth making an article out of the fact. Presumably there are people to be found who think the same of Presbyterians (or Episcopalians),  or Orthodox (or Liberal) Jews, or Sunni (or Shite) Muslims. Would we accept such articles?   Each individual article--that's another matter.  Who predominates?--people can decide that for themselves. DGG (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - unless there is similar material elsewhere, but (as I suggested above), the title should be renamed to televangelists. Peterkingiron 16:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - As I pointed out above there is already a Televangelism article. TerriersFan 16:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per QueenAdelaide. The concept is sound but it is a bit POV. This can be dealt with editorially. Dbromage  [Talk]  23:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --Tjss(Talk) 00:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thorough enough for ya? Mandsford 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Gosh, you're keen. Artw 05:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete poorly written, OR, POV garbage-- Sef rin gle Talk 04:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions.   — Sef rin gle Talk 04:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Keep Just because something is controversial, there is no reason not to include it on Wikipedia. I personally very much favor such lists so that this type of phenomenon can be tracked and studied. It is definitely in keeping with an encyclopedia. It is raw data and a useful directory, nothing more.--Filll 19:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is an important social topic, discussed much in the media and popular culture, as a phenomenon independant to an extent from the individuals responsible. ornis ( t ) 22:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Filll and Ornis. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename and clearup to List of controversial televangelists (United States). Two reasons: (1) The main article on televangelists has a far, far, better section on scandals, which explores the reasons behind the phenomenon. This is a list, not an article, and I support Calgary's revision and reasoning. (2) This article is exclusively about the US, whereas Televangelism covers other territories as well. Seektruthfromfacts 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Points, votes, comments
There have been a number of points made, and I'd like to see them represented here, so people can list their names by the point which best represents them. So, a condensed list of basic points (in bold) is in order, followed by a single or two-line vote and comment. The main comment appears to indicate a problem with the title, that it is "singling out a particular religious group." If this is really a valid concern (and Im not so sure it is), reasonable comments seems to suggest that a simple rename would be sufficient to make this more generally applicable.

Note: I think some people might be confusing Evangelicals (a generally American strain of Protestantism complete with Restorationist claims and nationalist leanings) with evangelism itself, which is simply a more general term for "preaching [the good news]." So "evangelists" is simply a more formal way of saying "preachers." The problem with using "evangelists" is that it appears to indicate Protestantism, much like the term "clergy" would seem to exclude many non-hierarchical (Congregationalist) denominations (churches) and instead indicate Catholics and maybe Anglicans. "Religious officials" might work, but again, this would seem to indicate only churches who have an official structure, and might not include even the more famous scandals involving non-structured American Protestants, whatever they might call themselves. Furthermore, Evangelicals are quite prominent in the televangelist scene (again another context), take their name from the concept of evangelism, and some of these have been quite the pioneers in scandal - be it sex, money, or "wall to wall mink" carpet (Google it), with the general sense being that new inventions breed new sins -- "embracing the airwaves" (and a populist style of ministry) has a noted downside.

Anyway, there are some basic points beyond "keep" or "delete", and these appear to the be in order for this particular case. -Stevertigo 06:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are other confusions, which is part of why Evangelical is a disambiguation page. "Evangelicals" are adherents, whether or not they are a preacher, to a theological position within Christianity, described at Evangelicalism.  "Evangelists" are either a preacher of any Christian religion or a particular type of preacher whose primary role is seeking converts in large group settings, see evangelist for a partial explanation.  In the second sense other roles include apologist, missionary, or theologian.  The article conflates the two meanings, with the apparent (though unsettled and unstated) inclusion criteria of any preacher who is an evangelical that has been involved in a scandal.  So I'd say keeping at this title is clearly incorrect; the title isn't the topic of the article.
 * As always, I believe the issue is whether there are secondary sources on the topic of an article. So which is a topic with better sourcing - "televangelist scandals" or "evangelical preacher scandals"?  My gut feeling is that the former is more likely to have sources that are comprehensive, but both probably have some secondary sources that discuss more than one such scandal.  This needs a WP:HEY effort, focused on sourcing, if it is not to merit deletion.  If anybody comes up with decent sourcing for either topic, move rename and edit appropriately, otherwise delete.  GRBerry 13:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I had'nt seen WP:HEY before. I think I like it, though Im skeptical of the meta-notability - I can probably think of a hundred other AFD/VFD's over the years which were corrected during the course of an AFD rescue. It's a sad paradox - we creationists don't want to be at the mercy of deletionists, but its too often that an AFD threat works to spark constructive repair. One wonders if deletionists are better described as "angel extortionists," (cf. angel investors) threatening the wiki into growth and prosperity.
 * In any case, now that we seem to mostly agree on a name change (and consequently, a context change), I'd like to see a list of proposed names. Now if not sooner. -Stevertigo 03:39, 23 August 2007 (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.