Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People of Praise


 * 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. The level of sourcing available is neither clearly too little nor clearly enough to consider this topic notable. But fortunately, people seem to be focussed on sourcing issues now, hopefully it will improve. If the problem is the editors, not the topic, I suggest Dispute resolution. Mango juice talk 19:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

People of Praise

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

If Wikipedia is not a battleground, publisher of original thought, soapbox, or advertising venue, I have difficulty seeing why this article is here. So far hardly anything in this article is verified. In fact it is doubtful that enough has been written about the subject for it to be verifiable. The People of Praise does not meet the notability requirements. All of the google results I found were from People of Praise created websites. Hardly anyone has seen fit to write about it. And those who have written about it are of dubious credentials and cannot provide fuel for an unbiased article. Most of the editors of this page are members or ex-members with axes to grind. This page should be deleted or stripped down to a stub and built up by real editors. Theredhouse7 21:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and the editing which is probably necessary can be done, since the nom,. seems to think it a good alternative to deletion. DGG 04:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I do not think the editing necessary can be done. You can't make an unbiased article with the sources that are available.  And Theredhouse7 makes a good point, this doesn't meet WP:N.  (I am one of the primary contributors to this article.) Danbold 04:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have also nominated River Ridge (building) and the category People of Praise for deletion. Theredhouse7 04:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Theredhouse7: Indeed, almost no objective, secondary sources that specifically mention the People of Praise have been produced by some of the editors. However, this hardly means that the article should be scrapped.


 * At least one source that is used on the People of Praise wiki page,, can potentially be seen as an adequate source. Reliable Sources states that "[r]eliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Although the author, Mr. Reimers, is an ex-POP member, his is a scholarly, reliably published article in a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, the  Neutral Point of View page states that "All editors and all sources have biases." Due to the accepted process by which Mr. Reimer's article was published, it seems to be that this source indeed can be counted as valid.


 * Many other published and verifiable sources exist, but with a catch: they have been produced by the People of Praise and/or ex-members with these "axes to grind" as you say. I fully agree with you that Wikipedia is not a battleground, publisher of original thought, soapbox, or advertising venue. Despite this, the information available is sufficient to provide an excellent wiki article, although certain foundational documents from the POP must still be produced, possibly due to editors' currently restricted access or current lack of any access thereof.


 * Finally, there is an argument that the People of Praise meets required Notability guideline, which puts forth that "[n]otable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"." Your statement that "Hardly anyone has seen fit to write about [the People of Praise]", aside from being inaccurate (many people have written about the People of Praise), seems to connect "notable" with "importance," which does not fit the definition used by Wikipedia.


 * Definitions aside, an organization that has affected thousands of people both positively and negatively, one that can produce so much discussion and desire to properly communicate its nature, is simply not unnotable. I can only hope that members and ex-members can treat this wiki page fairly and maturely, and follow the editing guidelines. Thanks.


 * Aufklaerung 05:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Aufklaerung


 * Keep but fix. Its been around for more than 30 years and has a bunch of branches? I'd say it's notable enough for an article to exist. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - That sounds like WP:BIGNUMBER Theredhouse7 17:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - An religious denomination with many branches throughout the US. Third party references, like the Gresham Outlook article, demonstrate "notability." --Oakshade 05:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment "The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy." I still do not believe this requirement has been met.  The Reimer's source might meet it, although he is a former member and the journal is not necessarily reliable.  As for the Gresham Outlook piece, that is not even about the community, it is about a member of it. Theredhouse7 04:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * comment it will obvious take a good deal of editing--it can be shown to exist--and i think all religious domination of splinter groups are notable, as long as they have a real name and an existence, for WP is not the place to decide on their true notability. But frankly, I don't believe the numbers given. Groups of that size are noticed more than this one has been. DGG 07:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete--Greatestrowerever 10:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a vote?. Care to elaborate?  --Oakshade 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article does not have the sources necessary to support it to the degree that would be required for the existing structure and content. I concur with the request for deletion. JustinW 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete After more thought, this article is too controversial for members, ex-members and non-members who have an affiliation with the People of Praise to edit in a mature (i.e. NPOV) manner.


 * The langauge used in the edits from Tropicality and D1xrfgf3 were too extreme. In addition, Danbold, "one of the primary contributors" to the article, is a POP member. JustinW, who has in fact just nominated the article for deletion, has also frequently edited the page in the past. The changes made by Justinw, also POP member, do not seem to properly balance the language of the article, but rather tip it more in POP's favor.

Nevertheless, one source listed as "further reading" on the wiki page, the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988) could qualify as a reliable, secondary source. After reading the information on the POP/Catholic Charismatic Renewal in this book, it seems to me that substantial improvements could be made to the article. It's actually pretty astonishing that pro-POP editors have not cited it yet; they could have avoided a fair amount of controversy. Right now, I'm still for deletion, but I'll try and make some changes in the coming week and it'd be great if everyone could voice their opinion.Aufklaerung 03:36, 1 May 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.