Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desperate Preacher's Site (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Keep. Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 14:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Desperate Preacher's Site
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on website fails WP:GNG, there is one reference from a Christian news site from 2000, other coverage in media consists of passing mentions that fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The last AFD attracted some SPA/COI interest but did not generate a quorum from established users. Vrac (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Christianity Today is an exceptionally good source for things related to this topic. A brief Google Books search also turned up this, which suggests this website was actually a pioneer in its niche, 15-20 years ago.  That's two independent reliable sources, and WP:GNG is met, even if we grant nom's assertion that the other four mainstream media references (which are admittedly brief) don't contribute a thing to notability. Per WP:NTEMP, notability, once established, is presumed indefinite, even though I've never heard of the site and presume it's been eclipsed by others. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close -- We had this discussion barely over a month ago and it closed as "no consensus". We should accept that outcome, unless there is fresh evidence againast the article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It closed as no consensus because it got only one vote from a non-SPA, non-COI user. It's entirely appropriate to reopen the discussion, lack of a quorum doesn't resolve the question of whether an article should or should not be kept. Vrac (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems to me that this site is only one examples of something that could be an interesting WP topic, and which might fit into the Sermon article -- the source of sermons as well as re-using sermons. In the 19th century, "good" sermons were often printed and could be purchased or found in libraries. Surely many of those were repeated on different pulpits. So this phenomenon is not limited to this one site, much less the internet. I say weak keep but my preference is to integrate this into the article on sermons, or as a more general article linked to it. LaMona (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The "world of clergy" is indeed a special "niche" unto itself, which is perhaps why the "authorities" at Wikipedia question "Desperate Preacher's Site." Simply, there are many publications, mostly small, such as at seminaries and elsewhere in the "church world," which are often read only by those involved with "church" from its "inner-circles" and not by the general public at large - including not being read by almost all lay churchgoers. Should such "niches" be viewed in their own contexts or must they always be viewed from the larger focus of "popular society and culture?" Surely there are more such niches out there, in law, medicine, etc., where some publications are popular only inside of their own "niche." Just my opinion, but DesperatePreacher.com is still quite popular inside its own niche, and yes it has been joined by a few other such websites - but it has not been "eclipsed" by them, as was alluded in other comments above.  If anything DesperatePreacher.com is still recognized as being "edgy" in its own niche, even in comparison to other newer competitor websites, perhaps most just because of its name.  That all said, I think that the page itself ought to be kept.  I would be against "Desperate Preacher's Site" being thrown into the weeds under other Wikipedia articles on "Sermons," "Lectionary," or "Lectionaries," just because there would likely be "push-back" to have it removed from those articles as there are "many/legion" who want those Wikipedia articles to reflect "church" in only the most positive light.  However, I think other articles/pages on Wikipedia ought to have prominent links to "Desperate Preacher's Site" at the bottoms of their presentations.  Yes, that would be proper.  And,...truth be told, I do make my own references to DesperatePreacher.com and to Wikipedia's "Desperate Preacher's Site" on my own website at www.ClergySecrets.com, a website which I'd like to see be "important" enough to have a Wiki page of its own sometime too! ;)  lol  --WarrenVitcenda (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep this and other references provided appear to pass GNG. Valoem   talk   contrib  18:49, 30 April 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.