Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David W. Graves


 * 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 03:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

David W. Graves

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nonnotable religious figure. My news sweeps did not find anything to indicate that this subject might meet the WP:GNG. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  19:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete May well be prominent within the Nazarene denomination, but I couldn't source it. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and Close Dr. Graves' leadership role in an international church is, on its own terms, more than a little notable. A very simple Google search easily pulls up acceptable sourcing that details Dr. Graves' notability --, , - which can easily be added to the article. And let's be perfectly honest - this AfD is not here by accident. This AfD is strictly here as an act of vindictiveness following my questioning of the nominator's efforts to save this article -  - in another AfD debate, even going to the point of trying to erase my editing of the article that included redlinks that clearly show the subject's achievements are not notable. In fact, the nominator specifically cited this article in a sad attempt to embarrass me in that other AfD discussion. And this is why so many people get sour on Wikipedia - they are here to try to do something of value and they are treated like sh*t. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-script: I would also recommend going through all of the entries in General Superintendent (Church of the Nazarene) and compare this stub to the other entries of previous superintendents. You will see the article is no better and no worse than any of the other biographical articles on previous superintendents. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * [User:And Adoil Descended]] I do not doubt Dr. Graves' leadership within the Church of the Nazarene. However, denomination-affiliated publications cannot be used to establish notability, see:  WP:N.  What is needed to pass WP:N are articles about Dr. Graves in publications not affiliated with the denomination, thinks like book reviews and profiles whether in the Los Angeles Times or the Christian Post, but not in the denominational press.  The exception to this rule  is that clergy who attain certain high rank within denominations are considered Wikipecia notable (much as congressmen and college presidents are), which is why Superintendents have articles.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And how do you explain the other articles listed in General Superintendent (Church of the Nazarene), none of which are stuffed with Los Angeles Times profiles of the church leaders? In fact, most of them have far less in the way of sourcing than the article on Dr. Graves. Why aren't any of those articles up for deletion as well? And while we are talking about WP:N, may I quote from the guideline that notability is extended when "the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Dr. Graves, in his role as General Superintendent, has become part of the "enduring historical record" of his church. In fact, the phrase "denomination-affiliated publications" and the warning against these publications is not found in WP:N, nor is it found in WP:VERIFIABILITY. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * User:And Adoil Descended, just fyi, WP:N: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." is routinely interpreted to mean, for example, not merely denomination-published magazines, but even that, for example, the statewide, general circulation newspaper, Deseret News cannot be used to establish the notability of individuals employed by LDS because Deseret is indirectly owned by the LDS Church. Church publications can be used on facts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Wait. I feel like an idiot.  I was doing a routine sourcing, and totally missed: General Superintendent (Church of the Nazarene). My apologies E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Tomwsulcer Doesn't General Superintendent (Church of the Nazarene) pass the way bishops and Presbyterian Moderators do? E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Show me the rule, in which the WP:GNG does not apply, such that heads of churches are automatically granted their own articles, and I'll consider withdrawing my nomination.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tom, It is commonly cited (asserted?) with high-ranking Mormons (Council of The 70) and Presbyterian Moderators, and us sort of accepted by extension, I suppose, from WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, shall I find some examples of AFDs where this came up?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Specific guidelines such as WP:CLERGY tend to codify the past experience of Wikipedians in determining notability, although notability is still determined by the general notability guideline. For example, Catholic bishops, in the cumulative experience of Wikipedians, tend to be notable because they almost always pass the basic criteria for people. What these Bishops do has impact -- it is covered in major media -- their decisions affect not only the Catholic community but the wider world, and are reported in the NY Times, Guardian, etc. In contrast, a much less prominent religion such as the Church of the Nazarene really does not get much coverage at all, because it does not have much impact. The Wikipedia rule is People listed as bishops in Pentecostalist denominations may fail AFDs unless they have significant reliable third party coverage. My sweeps of sources found nothing on Mr. Graves other than reports within its own magazines (which does not seem impartial). Further, if you look at prestigious position, you'll see that it falls under the subject heading of factors that do not automatically render notability. The result is current "articles" on Mr. Graves which are almost entirely unsupported, could be fabricated, are uncheckable, and are BLP violations.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The General Superintendent is the highest elected office within the Church of the Nazarene, which has more than 2.2 million members in 159 countries. I think this very obvious fact ensures that the subject of the article more than passes the very basic standards of notability. And the grasping-at-straws statements that the religion "does not have much impact" or that the source material about Dr. Graves is "fabricated" shows off the venality and foolishness of this AfD. I strongly recommend that this AfD be shut down with all due speed. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If so, then where are the sources?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is your evidence that the church "does not have much impact" or that the source material about Dr. Graves "could be fabricated"? You made those statements - either produce evidence to back those claims or man up and withdraw this AfD. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The reason we have WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES is so that we don't have to go over the same ground every single AfD. Yes, this is the equivalent of an Episcopal bishop - a more significant position in fact: the Church of the Nazarene is larger than the Episcopal Church (United States). The fact that there is an article on the position of General Superintendent indicates its notability. StAnselm (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I knew that I had seen that argument/outcome in several previous debates.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * comment To understand this policy, look at List of bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America or click at the most recent bishops to be added to the list, such as Robert Skirving.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to closing editor. The 2 principal editors on this page, appear to be presently engaged in some sort of personal vendetta in which each attempts to disparage and/or delete pages begun by the other. I have no idea who or what started it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not on my part. I sincerely don't think Graves is notable. I've always gone by the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not so fast. The other editor's obsession with Dr. Graves began in this AfD when he scavenged through my back edits and pulled up the stub I wrote on this subject in an attempt to discredit my comprehension of WP:RS. You will also notice that he made no effort to have any other article in General Superintendent (Church of the Nazarene) removed, even though most of them have worst referencing than this one. How is it that Dr. Graves' article alone fails WP:GNG and no other article in General Superintendent (Church of the Nazarene) has the same problem? And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If community consensus is to keep articles on top church officials, regardless of lack of sources, then I'll withdraw my nomination. Please understand my nomination was made in good faith, my predisposition is to doubt any article which lacks sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -- "General superintendent" as head of the denomination is essentially the equivalent of a bishop in other denominations. If the complaint is that the article is unsourced, it should be tagged accordingly, not deleted.  There are many unsourced articles in WP.  If they were all deleted, WP would be much smaller.  WP:V requires that information is capable of verification, not that that every fact has a full citation.  I appreciate that BLP articles are now required to have citations, but a citation of an internal source (such as a denominational website) ought to be sufficient for that, even though such sources do not qualify as WP:RS.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per E.M. Gregory and Peterkingiron. North of Eden (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my nomination for deletion; I had not understood policy about clergy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2015 (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.