Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Prayer


 * 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 (WP:SNOW to an extent). 1 delete argument (weak delete) outnumbered and outargued by lots of keep arguments. Giggy Talk 04:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Live Prayer

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A beautifully written and thoroughly comprehensive advertisement for a televangelism programme of no obvious distinction, occupying the coveted 1am slot on a local TV station (but available of course via the Interwebs). If Wikipedia were a directory of televangelists, or an advertisement site,this would be a perfect article. But Wikipedia is neither of those things. Subject was already nuked once at due to OTRS complaints. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep it was on national TV at one time, has appeared on The Howard Stern Show & The O'Reilly Factor, and has numerous media references from established sources such as the Associated Press, Boston Globe , Miami Herald , and the Washington Post . --PEAR (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the old article was deleted because it didn't cite any references establishing notability, the new article does, and therefore should be kept. --PEAR (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it was deleted because the subject complained it was not complimentary enough (no such complaint this time, obviously) and because there was no evidence anyone but the subject and his fans and detractors give a shit about it. As evidence the 1am slot on the local TV station which is stated to be its current outlet. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite his less than desireable time-slot he does have a massive following (about 40,000 people email his ministry daily) and draws a lot of media attention. --PEAR (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article is well sourced, and it does not read like spam at all. --Evb-wiki 12:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Are you kidding? This article is very well sourced and covers a subject that is, without a doubt, highly notable. I suspect a pointed nomination here... Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 13:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy keep - I'd be happy if all articles were as well-sourced. It perhaps still requires a bit of editing to make the intro look less like a churchy promo, but it gets quite balanced later on. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reference section sufficiently establishes notability. If the article reflects POV, then it should be edited rather than deleted. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 20:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This topic is notable and this article is well-sourced. This is exactly the type of article that could benefit from a well-written, well-researched "criticism" section, but Wikipedia would not benefit from its deletion. David in DC 21:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well sourced and notable.  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 05:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The show has a 1 am slot on a local cable station, hardly an earthshaking TV presence. He rented time on a Christian cable network (edit) with a 1% market share (per the article on the network)for 4 months in 2006, again not an earthshaking TV presence. The evidence of notability seems to lump together the man and the TV show, which is not the way notability is judged. The TV show did not appear on the Howard Stern show, the man did. There is a difference. There has been some controvery and notoreity about his attack on Mormons and the wearing of Mormon temple garments by Mitt Romney, but that seems to fall in the "15 minutes of fame" basis for distinguishing between what is encyclopedic and what is merely newsworthy. The article is unabashedly promotional and POV, even to the point of saying in the "Controversy" section "Keller claims to deliver the truth of the Bible without modification even when people may be offended." This is not to say that by additional rhetoric such as the attacks on Mormons, he might become as notable as Father Coughlin in the future, in which case an article could be re-created. Edison 16:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The I network (now ION Television) is not a "Christian cable network", although it clearly promotes some Abrahamic family-values, it's strictly secular. --PEAR (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Founded as PAX network by a self proclaimed "born again Christian" and long featured late night Christian programming while having no hint of sex, violence or strong language in its dramatic programs. Got something like a 1% share of the audience per ION Television which says "Typically, the network's television shows average only 1% of the viewing audience, which is considerably lower than any other (major) broadcast network." Edison 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Commennt PAX (now ION) does not label itself as "Christian", most of the programs -- while not containing content offensive to Christians -- are secular. By your logic films by Steven Speilberg must be "Jewish". --PEAR (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Have they always had Jewish and Islamic content about equal to the Christian content? The article on the network says "The network also aired religious programming at night from The Worship Network during the late night hours and contemporary Christian television network Praise TV Friday and Saturday nights from 12:00-3:00AM ET/PT". Please do not edit other peoples comments, as you, PEAR,  did here . Edison 19:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there any network in the United States which shows just as much Jewish & Islamic content as Christian (other than the explicitly Jewish & Islamic channels)? No, because most people in the US are Christians; however, ION Television is still secular because they don't explictly claim to be Christian. --PEAR (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whether the network is Christian or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Theological axes should not be ground here. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 20:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with you. --PEAR (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - While I may personally object to the subject of the article, it is not relevant for an AFD discussion. The notability is quite well-documented with plenty of independent sources.  The tone does seem suspiciously on the positive side, but it is not uncommon for articles to be written by the proponents of the subject.  It is certainly not a criterion for deletion.  My only real problem with the article is the numerous inline links to specific sections of the website, which seem sort of "spammy" and they really aren't encyclopedic.  Furthermore, it is not uncommon for these kinds of links to go stale over time.  Much better to just keep a single external link to the website and let anyone who is interested navigate to the relevant page.  I'll see if I can clean it up somewhat. --Pekaje 14:26, 7 August 2007 (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.