Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bradshaw (pastor)


 * 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. v/r - TP 19:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

John Bradshaw (pastor)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nominating per request at WT:AFD: Rationale in talk page of article: "No indication of notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO. 75.192.207.68 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)" Cerejota (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BIO He recently took over as speaker/director for a weekly international TV show that claims the viewership of millions. --Traviskeith909 (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - a comprehensive review of the sources that have been added (or existed) since the start of this AFD, every single one is closely associated with the subject so they do not count towards notability. The Keep have shown how he meets any of the notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.21.169 (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I have yet again reviewed the sources that were added to the article while this nomination was in progress, once again, all of the sources are closely associated with the subject and cannot count towards notability. While these sources may be acceptable to verify most information-they cannot establish notability. The article, still, contains NOT ONE source that is independent of the subject. 75.197.249.71 (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG.--Cox wasan (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep You say all sources are primary just because they are the same denomination? These are separate entities, including the news reporting department of the global church, as well as other media organizations. These are well-respected sources used as references throughout other parts of Wikipedia. --   McIntosh097 (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2011 — McIntosh097 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete The refs do not appear to satisfy the requirement of independence inherent in WP:N and WP:BIO, and do not show influence outside his organization or having been noted by reliable sources outside his organization. Edison (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2011 (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.