Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desperate Preacher's Site


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Desperate Preacher's Site

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article on website for preachers fails WP:GNG, only reference is a religious news site article from 2000, have not found any significant coverage in WP:RS. Vrac (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Considering the article is actually rather critical of the website, it is rather silly to call it a "promotional article". Did you actually read it?  Regardless, toen is not a reason for deletion.  Christianity Today is a reliable source in general (editorial staff, print magazine in business since 1956) and certainly a reliable source for religious information, so shouldn't be written off.  That combined with a good deal of book coverage -  - should establish notability.  The person who requested undeletion suggested reusing the material in a more general article (on "sermon plagiarism"/reusing sermons) which has attracted a significant amount of debate in RS.  That is also a viable option, although like I said this website appears to be independently notable.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hahaha Welcome trolls! Vrac (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hun? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm not your hun. Vrac (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Commentators/contributors, Having read what ThaddeusB wrote above, I'm in agreement. The DesperatePreacher.com website is much more notable to "insiders" of church bureaucracy and management than it is to the general public or even to general "churchgoers."  That factor alone perhaps can add some "mystique" to its perhaps perceived lack of notability.  I have not tried to get Google search results regarding the website until now, as ThaddeusB suggests doing.  I was rather surprised to see the listing of various books on Google that have made reference to the website.  There is "notability" out there, if it's looked for.  The website was even highlighted on the David Letterman Show, which the website itself has used to it's own benefit by referencing. (Here's the link to the David Letterman Show reference, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nou7MH0WpdY - or search on YouTube for "Desperate Preacher's Website gets a plug on the Letterman Show")  It would be nice though if the page could be enhanced more, with references and comments from more "third party" voices and sources.  Perhaps I could even be one of those "sources" with my website www.ClergySecrets.com?? lol   I've also noticed that some external links on Wikipedia's "Desperate Preacher's Site" page that concern articles about "sermon plagiarism/reusing sermons" have been recently deleted, presumably because they were not directly concerned with the website.  Since that has happened, I'm also interested in the idea of creating a Wikipedia page that directly concerns "sermon plagiarism"/reusing sermons, and including additional reference to "Desperate Preacher's Site" there. --WarrenVitcenda (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

1) This links to an article about a resignation due to "sermon plagiarism." http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/091000/religion_20040910014.shtml#.VPe0ri6mErg
 * More articles about "sermon plagiarism" and DesperatePreacher.com.

2) The Charlotte Observer newspaper also has an archived opinion article that references and discusses the DesperatePreacher.com website as follows: Charlotte Observer - April 13, 2002; "INTERNET INSPIRATION FOR PREACHERS: I hate to burst your bubble, but the inspiration for that crackerjack sermon you heard the other morning might not have come straight from God. DesperatePreacher.com - a Web site filled with sermon samples and ideas - might have helped. The Rev. Tom Tate of Plaza Presbyterian joked with me at a clergy lunch that DesperatePreacher.com doesn't begin to describe him on those Sunday mornings when he's sweating over a sermon he wishes were better. That's when he's..."  ---WarrenVitcenda (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

3) The San Diego Union Tribune also had a quite long article concerning "sermon plagiarism/copying."  http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061125/news_1c25sermons.html  ---WarrenVitcenda (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It may be "just barely enough," but there are now two articles referenced for the topic to counter the original criticism that only one article was being used. It would seem that the current presentation on Wikipedia meets both the "verifiability" and "no original research" requirements that are needed to remain part of Wikipedia.--WarrenVitcenda (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I do have a "David Letterman video" question though. Is it ok to add the link for the YouTube video reference where mention of the  "Desperate Preacher's Site" was made on the Late Show with David Letterman?  How could that be "properly" done??  This is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nou7MH0WpdY  Thanks.  Warren Vitcenda  --WarrenVitcenda (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Letterman show can be cited. See cite video. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, did you watch the video? There is nothing about it that would qualify it as an acceptable source. A five-second joking reference while a talk show host chats with an audience member is hardly an encyclopedic source. Vrac (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a technical question about how to cite a video, which I answered... Obviously the only thing it could be used to support is that the site was referenced by Letterman, which may or may not be worth mentioning in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Citing the video would be a copyright violation. Vrac (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ELNEVER, you cannot give the URL to the YouTube video because it likely infringes on the copyright owner of that Letterman episode. You could  cite the episode without the URL but it's not helpful in establishing notability as required by WP:GNG.  As Vrac points out, an audience member's random comment is not a reliable source.  Msnicki (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The "source" of the reference to the "Desperate Preacher's Site" in the David Letterman video is hardly "random" or "just from an audience member." The source's name was given by the source himself in the video as "Jimmy Only," from Manhasset, NY; and he said that he is a "minister." Pastor Only continues to pastor to this day, in Manhasset, NY, at the same congregation. (Pastor Only's congregational webpage is at: http://www.uccmanhasset.org/#!/chxk.) Additionally, the WP:GNG says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." So what is meant by "trivial?"  Merriam-Webster says that "trivial" means (1) "common place/ordinary," and (2) "of little worth or importance."  To the contrary of "trivial," Pastor Only's mention of "Desperate Preacher's Site" signifies the weight that the website has had on the inner circles of "church bureaucracy," which goes hand-in-hand with the main articles on the "Desperate Preacher's Site" page on Wikipedia. Does it matter at all, as well, that the WP:NNC says that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article?"  Does that mean what it says? WP:NNC goes on to say that the principle of due weight is the guiding principle.  Due Weight on Wikipeida says "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."  -- So, regarding the David Letterman video and the seemingly broad general standard of a "see also" section, adding a mention of the David Letterman video in a "see also" section (without the URL) would seem potentially acceptable to Wikipedia just by the "due weight" of the source of the comment about "Desperate Preacher's Site" in the David Letterman video - someone who is an ordained and practicing minister and who identified himself (and who ostensibly has more "due weight" than what "flat-earth-believers" do for inclusion in a Wikipedia page about "Earth," but whose mention is evidently allowed).--WarrenVitcenda (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 01:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep never mind the subscription program of this site, this website has been around since 1996 and offered interactive resources in terms of discussion forums for the Revised Common Lectionary that were innovative for its time. These discussion forums are still being continued today--a free resource, no subscription required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkarin (talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)  — Bkarin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.