Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Frangipane (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 delete. The "keep" opinions are just too weakly argued to overcome the unrebutted concerns of the "delete" side that there is not enough reliable, substantial third-party coverage as required by WP:GNG and WP:BLP. The "keep" arguments amount to "he has a significant ministry" (which should be sourceable), "he has a lot of Amazon reviews" (which are not reliable sources), "other articles about academics are just as poorly sourced" (WP:WAX), "he has many books and Google hits" (also not reliable sources), and "systemic bias" (against influential white American men? really?). There is only one "keep" that actually argues that there are "multiple independent sources which discuss our subject", but does not say what these sources are.  Sandstein  09:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Francis Frangipane
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I nominated this article for deletion last year and it was kept in a low-turnout discussion with some specious keep arguments. The problems with this article are manifold. It is a BLP with precisely zero reliable sources. There are supposedly good sources for this subject (per the arguments in the previous AfD) but they have not manifested themselves in the ensuing year.

My original goal was to return to this highly promotional article, scrape off all of the promotional fluff and start over with good sources. But there are no good sources, and it is all fluff. A fluff-ectomy would leave no article behind.

In short, there is no indication in the article that the subject meets the GNG, and the fact that it has been entirely unsourced for over 8 years is both a major BLP problem and a strong hint that it will never be adequately sourced.  A  Train talk 00:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article lacks multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject—doesn't meet WP:GNG. Notability is based on sources, and we lack sources to show that Frangipane was/is notable. Additionally, the article is heavy on WP:PROMO and WP:FLOWERY language. I agree with the nominator, it's all fluff and "a fluff-ectomy would leave no article behind."- GS ⋙ ☎ 03:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  07:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  07:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  07:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only section with any citation is the bibliography section. Without it, it would have qualified for WP:BLPPROD. Alexius08 (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- If the claims of the article are right, he has a significant national and international ministry. Though it is not an independent source, there is a bio on his website here, which seems similar to that in the article, but different enough not to be copy-vio.  I not that the previous keep was following comments from two regular AFD contributors, who evidently knew of him.  The only real objection is that a BLP should be sourced, and his only lists some external websites for "see also", not references.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If he has a "significant ministry" then where are the articles and profiles in reliable sources about him? The bio on his website is not an independent, reliable source. Neither are the "see also" links, which are all the subject's businesses.  A  Train talk 19:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * leaning Keep this AfD puts me in mind of one from a couple of weeks ago on an author, Andrew Heywood, the author of a number of textbooks on political theory. There, as here, Nom's pretty persuasive argument was " The only source is credited to his own website."  Articles for deletion/Andrew Heywood.  This thing is, Heywood's textbooks sold an astonishing number of copies, and according to the DesMoines Register, there are 2 million copies of Frangiane's many books in print.  It's not a WP:RS but Amazon.com shows literally hundreds of reviews for Frangipane's books, by verified purchasers.  As with Heywood, I am having trouble finding sources about Frangipane (I did find a couple, and added them to the page).  He has been a columnist at Charisma (magazine) for years, but those are articles by him, not about him.  This AfD is not simple.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lack of secondary sources, doesn't pass GNG. Cjhard (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't make heads or tails of this topic after doing an in-depth search on Google.  Our article is full of WP:OR and is being turned into copy pasta.  So the best sources I found were copy pasta.  All of the uncited material should be removed, even if all that is left is a list of publications.  I'm not worried about notability, the notability is obvious, with author after author quoting this man.  My number one concern right now is WP:V#Notability, which requires one or two secondary sources, and I'm not sure that we have that.  I need to review the policy.  I found an in-depth study from South Africa, http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/vee/v30n2/12.pdf.  This thing about Jezebel seems to be a hot topic on a chat board I saw.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I will remove the completely unsourced bio section now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * who participated in last year's AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:A Train, I do see where you're coming from; I saw it at last year's AfD. Two days ago, this was just an ADVERT. The source brought by User:Unscintillating is persuasive.  I have now removed the long, unsourced bio, added some reliably sourced material, and I continue to think that Frangipane is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is definitely getting better., and if it ends up being kept, I promise to help you improve it further. That said, I am not massively swayed by the sources here. Just to be extra pendantic, let's have a reminder of what the project considers a good source: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This stricture is even more important for BLPs, like this one. So let's examine our sources.
 * A book review in the Des Moines Register. I take this one on faith because it's behind a ProQuest subscription link. This is a reliable source for the book more than its BLP author, anyway.
 * An exceedingly trivial mention of the subject in this Christian Post blog. Even if this was an in-depth profile of the subject, is the Christian post a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Dunno about that one.
 * Two citations from the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a Christian thinktank. Again, does this have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?
 * A mention in a book by one Michael Wilkinson, a redlink author.
 * I'm totally open to the idea that this fellow is a major figure in contemporary Christianity. But where's the big profile in National Review, American Spectator, or Christianity Today to that effect?  A  Train talk 11:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I was just writing this when you rang: Sourcing Article needs sourcing and expansion, and sources are available in books.  Although ~ the first 5 pages of a book search turn up books written by Frangipane, after that you start to get SIGCOV discussions of his ideas, and a few details about his career.  Not all is favorable, one described his writing on "the Jezabel spirit" as "anachronistic."  Some of the books that discuss his work are probably self-published, but some are by "real" publishers.  The same is true of books written by Frangipane; he has had books published by Baker Publishing Group, but has also (mostly?) self-published.  However, a number of his books have been translated into other languages.  Article needs an editor, or several of them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Christian Post is well regarded, and probably about as good on facts as the average American daily. I am hoping that one of the editors I pinged above will be more able than I to set Frangipane in his proper context.  There is, for example, his book The Jezebel Spirit, which is about the Jezebel spirit.  I added material cited to a single book to the text.  Talking like this about women certainly places him at one edge of modern Protestantism.  But my point here is that if you run a book search on frangipane   +"jezebel spirit", you get quite a few hits .  The first hit is to the book I cited in the text; the 2nd hit is self=published, but the third hit is on Music in the Old Bones: Jezebel Through the Agesis out from Southern Illinois University Press, it is by Janet Howe Gaines, a literature professor at the University of New Mexico, and it offers a scholarly encounter with Frangipane's work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, that all is sounding more promising to me. If some more academic references materialize then I'm happy to withdraw the nomination and get to work improving the article.  A  Train talk 12:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Last comment was 5 days ago looking for more academic sources to materialize - have any been located?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- but not for the reasons one might expect. I expect evangelists to engage in self-promotion as much as any musician or comedian. There is a dose of COI here too, I suspect. My concern is the standard used for academics, whose ONLY claim to fame is their bibliography. No mainstream press articles about Frangipane?  There aren't many about most academics, either. Rhadow (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as half of an argument. Preachers are different from profs, and therefore we shouldn't use the same criteria when evaluating them. Okay, for the sake of discussion, I'm with you so far. But where is there criteria that we should use when evaluating them? You seem to be arguing that, because they aren't typically covered in mainstream sources, preachers should be exempt from the WP:GNG.  A  Train talk 07:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for jumping in here, especially since my own comment is deserving of criticism as half an argument, but there is a difference between preachers and evangelists, going back to the Greek words. Unscintillating (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As a classicist, I am embarrassed. You are correct, : I used broad synonyms carelessly. I think my point remains, however.  A  Train talk 23:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. Many if not all churches have preachers, but evangelists are few and far between.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Then surely a character of such distinction has been written about in spades. But we're in the same place we were when I nominated this article two weeks ago, and little removed from when I nominated it over a year ago: a BLP with no reliable sources.  A  Train talk 00:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edit comment is "great. where are the sources then?" By changing the topic of your own question, you are making the keep !vote stronger, since the point about PROF is exactly the point that GNG (and your fallacy, "surely a character of...distinction has been written about" with sufficient sources to show GNG) is not the core definition of WP:N.  And yet, I was thinking something quite similar, which is, "what is the evidence that the topic is an evangelist"?  I would love to see that evidence.  It doesn't have to be GNG sources.  And evidence is more important in WP:N than sources.  As for WP:V#Notability, it says, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  Is this satisfied?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I'm not following you at all. How exactly have I "changed the topic of my own question"? That sounds like a pretty nifty trick I've got there, apparently.
 * There is a lot of handwaving in this debate but it really just comes down to one thing: are there enough reliable sources to support a BLP? BLP concerns are paramount everywhere on Wikipedia. Are there reliable sources that will support a BLP in this article or indeed anywhere? The answer continues to be no. All I have been doing since the beginning of this discussion (and not unreasonably, I like to think) is ask for sources. There is a lot of argumentation but the sources are not forthcoming.  A  Train talk 01:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not wanting to defend my position as having said reasonable things, but your responses are having an effect of pushing me to explain to you that my comments are based in reason. Your first question was, "But where is there criteria that we should use when evaluating ?"  Interesting question, but the next thing I know, your argument has shifted to GNG sources.  WP:N doesn't need sources.  The fact that the article needs reliable sourcing is a different question than Wikipedia notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm genuinely sorry if I'm alienating you, User:Unscintillating that is not my intent. I guess we just have wildly divergent understandings of WP:N. As you yourself point out above, WP:N demands that if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. I do not understand how this logically squares with your assertion that WP:N doesn't need sources, or with the notion that I have somehow moved the goalposts.
 * The thought experiment about WP:NEVANGELIST was a (mildly) entertaining path to finding what sourcing guideline we should have for this subject, but it is ultimately always down to sources.  A  Train talk 07:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Wildly"? Your softening words are joined with ever increasing escalations.  WP:V is core content policy.  Policy pages state that they are widely (not wildly) accepted standards that all editors should normally follow.  As long as you look at a quote from a core content policy, WP:V, and think that I'm citing a minor guideline, WP:N, your escalations will continue to be your personal problem.  It does verify that you haven't a clue what I've been emphasizing as the most important issue starting with my first comment.  But the problem here is also your understanding of W:N, which does not require sources, and PROF is a helpful example of how this is applied.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment -- OK, I think I can express myself more clearly now. Politicians and athletes get press automatically. We have our choice of mainstream articles.  We can afford to be critical and choosy. College professors get tributes when they retire.  Preachers, I'm not sure when.  So we take what we can get; we should use good judgement.  In the case of Frangipane, we might ask ourselves, "Is he someone we want to remember in fifty years time?" Or, put another way, would the New York Times publish his obit without being paid?  It's easy to write a policy, hard to teach judgment. Tell me what you really want to do and I'll change my vote. Rhadow (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:N asks the question, "is the topic worthy of notice".  Especially in my search through pages 5-10 of Google scholar, I saw reference after reference quote from the topic.  This to me shows that the topic is worthy of notice.  Readers will have a reason to ask, "Who is Francis Frangipane".  What can I/we write reliably about the topic is a different question.  Should we accept in Wikipedia's voice that he has ministered to thousands of pastors?  Maybe we should just say that we couldn't find the type of material that we needed to write an article, making the point that those in the ministry could add a "Media" page to their primary website showing where independent sources have written about them.  Maybe we just haven't looked at reliable things we could say with the material we have.  My sense right now is that we don't have an article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I'm not able to find any substantive review of the subject's works. That's how notability for authors is judged. If 3rd party sources take notice of the author's work, then it's appropriate to have an encyclopedia entry. I don't see it this case. As discussed above, apart from DM review, the coverage is shallow and incidental. WP:TOOSOON perhaps. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not readily finding sources counting to GNG, but with a book list that long and 117,000 Google hits for the full name search, I'm trusting that there's three or four of 'em out there in that humongous haystack. Clearly a major Pentecostal popular writer. Carrite (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep There are some valid concerns raised here about systemic bias in Wikipedia, and I believe it's for the best that the article remains.Egaoblai (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject of our discussion albeit as earlier mentioned does not have much reliable sources in the article, a google search verifies his notability. There are multiple independent sources which discuss our subject of discussion and on that note i say via WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC, this article merits a stand-alone.Celestina007 (talk) 22:53, 04 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:HEY, did another (small) expand source, I think it's now in acceptable shape and meets ATrain's request above for more academic sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear. Article still needs expansion.  What I did accomplish is to identify one idea that Frangipane is notable for writing/preaching about, the "Jezebel spirit," and source that to reliable scholarly sources (written by academics who do NOT share Frangipane's POV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the article is written in a promotional tone, and I see no good claim of meeting either WP:CLERGY, or WP:GNG. River of Life Ministries appears to be a single congregation, not a wider movement.  I can't easily evaluate the claim that he would meet WP:NACADEMIC; I don't see clear evidence for it. As far as WP:NAUTHOR, he has a lot of works but I'm not sure any of them are considered important in any way, and trade press coverage of the books won't make him notable. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I just removed some of the hype. However, the fix for Hype is editing or discussion; it's not directly relevant to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2017 (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.