Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creflo Dollar

Creflo Dollar
Delete Not notable, advertising SquirrelKabob 14:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a renomination, just a week after the first was closed and the VFD tag wasn't even added to the article. I don't think that renominations should be made this early when the reasoning is a subjective "not notable". Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd removed the VfD as invalid due to the recent voting ont it. I'd forgotten to remove this entry too. I'll do that now, despite the vote from Sjakkalle. -Willmcw 17:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Creflo Dollar
Not notable, advertising SquirrelKabob 22:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete These TV preachers are a dime a dozen, and they pay to be on TV. Some of us in the industry call them Satan's Infomercials, since they are worse than infomercials. At least with Ronco, you get something you can use, these guys bilk little old ladies out of their last dollar. UncleFloyd 22:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't like 'em either, but 27000 google hits indicates certain degree of notability, even if it was achieved through self-promotion. Pburka 00:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. No opinion on the article itself, but the nominator's 7th edit was placing the article into VFD.  Nominator has made other bad-faith VFD nominations. Kaibabsquirrel 01:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Anyone with a national TV show is encyclopedic enough to merit inclusion.  -- Grev -- Talk 02:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously. Grace Note 04:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as per User:UncleFloyd. JamesBurns 08:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep National television guy, even if he does have to pay to be on TV (so did Colonel Sanders). - The inclusionist known as Eric 10:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; 4 column-metres in New Yorker ("Pray and grow rich" 2004 Oct 11) qualifies him to have a WP page right alongside the actors, dippy popular "musicians", and Simpsons and Tiny Toons characters that also don't amount to a hill of beans in the long run. Kwantus 14:34, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
 * Delete If I had this "church" scam going and I was paying to be on TV then I would be worthy of an entry? It is not like this guy is the Pope. Half of these bible thumpers claim to be bishops, yet they lack the Apostolic succession. These guys are all con artists and have a special place in hell reserved for them - an eternity of chatecism classes with Sister Mary Catherine and her ruler. Please contact me to send your donations to save your soul and get me on TV! Praise the almighty Federal Reserve Note! Toasthaven2 14:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, although editor really should have specified what "national television" meant in article; this could easily be weasel wording to mask that he was on in three cities at 3am Sunday morning, but as it turns out, here it does apparently mean BET. Dcarrano 15:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as per User:UncleFloyd. I can't remember if this is the "miracle water" guy or the guy Jimmy Kimmel makes fun of or some totally different guy. As the Church Lady would say about this guy, "Who could it be? Satan?" The article needs some POV work. As mentioned above these people "have a special place in hell reserved for them" and that is in the George W. Bush nut job Christian wing. The only way I would watch this guy would be on a pay per view bout with the Pope. My money would be on the German. FunkyChicken! 23:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no original sources and it is advertising. Just because someone is on televison does not make them notable. WilImcw 15:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note. WilImcw is not me. -Willmcw 21:41, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable American. KiwiPunter 22:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This user only has two edits to articles and now three edits to Votes for Deletion. I know this is not necessarily a qualification for voting, but it is useful for the closing administrator to know this sort of thing.  John Barleycorn 04:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. Well-known evangelist, whether you agree with him or not.  John Barleycorn 17:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per User:UncleFloyd. Frühstücksdienst 17:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * At the time of this vote, this User had only had 13 edits to articles, and several edits to VfD pages or adding VfD headers to other articles. Since that time, he/she has made many more edits.  I know that an edit count is not necessarily a criterion for discounting a User's votes, but it is worth mentioning to the administrator who closes this vote.  John Barleycorn 04:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. KraftyNoodle 01:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This was this User's first edit to Wikipedia, and since then, he/she has made only one other edit. John Barleycorn 04:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have made oodles of edits as an unregistered user, and I thought you had to register to vote. Sorry if I have stepped on anyones toes! KraftyNoodle 06:13, 26 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.