Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Hendricks


 * 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 of the debate was Keep Redwolf24  (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Howard Hendricks
No notability asserted. Fails WP:BIO. Possible vanity created by a user with one edit a few weeks ago. Arbusto 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Arbusto 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but needs major work. The author has several books related to "Christian living" on Amazon and shows up on Google with a sufficient number of hits to look as if he has some following.  Ande B 03:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets notability (people) for authors. Tom Harrison Talk 03:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep verifiable. For great justice. 05:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. C'mon, one of his books is in the 6000s in Amazon's sales ranks, another is in the 5000s.  I see that nom's edit history is heavily slanted towards smacking down Christian-related articles, but picking them apart for alleged inaccuracies works a heck of a lot better if we do some cursory research ourselves.  There's no way I'm going to AfD an article (or vote to do so) unless I'm personally satisfied as to the non-notability of its subject, and doing so takes all of two minutes.  RGTraynor 14:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Two AfD's of articles started by new users without sources and notability conncted to the same seminary that has been repeatedly vandalized by a banned user is not "smacking down" any group. Arbusto 17:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Mm, no, your contribution history is littered with slapping fraud tags, deleting doctorates issued by institutions whose bona fides of which you're not convinced, stripping links, adding Controversy & Criticism sections, so on and so forth ... thousands of such edits to Christian-themed articles; it's far from out of line to make such an inference. Of course no one can or should support banned vandals and puppetmasters, and I bear no love at all for the fundamentalist right, but no personal crusade to ring their chimes should override our obligation as editors to conduct fair, balanced research.  Otherwise, their claims of vendetta would be justified.  RGTraynor 19:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They aren't "doctorates" if they come from an unaccredited school who does business by mail. And you bet Benny Hinn, Kulhman, ect. get fraud tags; no one can "raise the dead," heal the sick by waiving their hand, ect. And you bet someone with an unaccredited degree who claims they are Indiana Jones-like with Biblical relics without any academic support should get a "controversy and criticism section." If you think questioning Smith Wigglesworth's claim that he raised the dead (14 dead to be exact) is "smacking" a article down, that's your problem. Arbusto 00:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and someone turn it into an actual article...--Isotope23 17:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Badly in need of cleanup and expansion, but keep as a stub until someone provides that.- Polo  te t  00:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Expand. -- User:Electric Eye  ( talk ) 08:40, 22 April 2006 (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.