Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Waldrep


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn; WP:BASIC and WP:GNG's requirements are found to be met. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 15:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Phil Waldrep

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Appears to have some local notability, but not national or global. Two of his three books are from Baxter Press (self publisher per their website). The article was created by a clearly conflicted editor and expanded by yet another before I and others cleared it of content that violated content policies While Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion that was only the roots; has done a nice job of digging up sources and completely revising to build a decent article, showing that Waldrep definitely has regional notability and is touching on national. So I withdraw my delete !vote. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC) (modified in light of E.M.Gregory's work Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  22:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  22:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  22:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  22:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I'd been trying to clean up the article, but there just isn't very much non-PR info available about the article subject. Attempts by SPAs to add notable achievements have not improved notability; the "medal of honor" can't be verified from a reliable source, and a 3rd class FCC license is something every DJ once had to get. Other than that, the article is mostly an ad for books and other related products, and the subject fails WP:AUTHOR. John Nagle (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:BASIC. Almost no coverage in any reliable sources, just promotions on various sites for upcoming revivals.  Fails WP:ANYBIO.  Has not been nominated or won a well-known and significant award or honor; has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field.  Magnolia677 (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a quick news search .E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep my early searches didn't bring up much, but something about the article made me run him through a news archive search, lots of hits a decade ago, some coverage more recently: has had/has national radio show, hosts conferences that draw thousands, White Houses phoned to ask that President Bush came to speak at one of his conferences - both President and Mrs. came to a conference, at least some of his books have been reviewed.  Doing a modest expand now.  Mostly sourcing to McClatchy articles picked up by dailies.  There's a lot more I did not ad.  Remember that many medium-size city dailies do not shop up in news searches, so you can get good coverage in good-siced regional dailies, and not show up well in online searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks E.M.Gregory.  Two things.  I am sympathetic to editors who want to save articles, but:
 * a) This article has been under promotional pressure, so please be careful not to add promotional content that is not supported by sources, as you did here. There is a just passing mention of the conferences there, and it does not say anything about them being attended by "thousands of people"; (I know you are generally a carefully editor and that was just a slip...); and
 * Sorry, my bad. I did see counts of 8,000 and 9,5000 attendees in one of the articles that came up on proquest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * b) I noted above that he does seem to have some local notability. There has been some debate in AFDs for a while now about whether local notability is sufficient to keep an article, and in my view it is generally not.  This article was created and expanded by employees of his ministry seeking to raise their profile.  That is not what Wikipedia is for and I don't think the subject meets the spirit of our notability policy.  I hope that makes sense to you, even if you do not agree.  Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Jytdog. Point taken.   I looked at the article history.   Wikipedia is certainly vulnerable to this sort of, and there is no question promotional use.  On this other hand, Waldrep cannot be dismissed as a merely local figure.  Here's the schedule for the "women of Joy" conferences scheduled fo rthe next few months, from Carolina to Texas.  this is not merely local. Nor can we dismiss newspapers like Sun-Sentinel or edited articles written by McClatchy journalists.   McClatchy is a national outlet.  As I see it, if not for the staffers in his Ministry who keep using Wikipedia like a personal promotion site, there would be no quesiton of Waldrep's notability.   I'm still thinking keep.  Is there a fix for the editing by his staff?.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * addendum: book review I cited appears to have been originally published in the The Dallas Morning News and ot have reached the SunSentinel and several other papers via McClatchy, syndicattion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * sourcing for a bio can also be found in articles in The Alabama Baptist here: including this one .E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've open dialogs with both of the editors (one declared a connection, the other has not yet, so I should have been more careful about saying "two employees" -- but it seems very likely that the second one is an employee as well). One of them responded - the other not yet. I am always hopeful that conflicted editors can learn and understand how to be productive members of the community (namely, by following the COI guideline).  And yes we decide, based on our own policies, what stays and goes!   I am not sure where "regional" fits with the "local" vs "national" debate that has been happening in WP...  Please feel free to keep expanding though, if you like.   I am open to changing my vote if NOTABILITY emerges. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Parsley Man (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Started by expanding article with details of his personal life, sourced to The Birmingham News - largest newspaper in the state. I have not sourced it to articles like this [ that give a sense of the scale of his ministry, reporting on a conference attended by 6,000 people form 15 states.  Many stories exist, about the ministry rather than the man./  This is a bio, but it will probably make sense to add a section about the ministry.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I especially love the many stories that come up with headlines like: Conference brings 9,000 people, road closure to Pigeon Forge  Waldrep Ministreis regularly draw, 5-10,000 attendees.  A great many stories are published about the conferences. when he holds one in a good-size town the news stories are about who spoke: George BushJr., Sarah Palin, Tim Tebow, but when he draws 9,000 Christians to Pigeon Forge..., well, I think it's funny that searches on his name turn up so many stories with headlines like this.  I'll try to make time to continue to expand. His church in Decatur was covered when it built a $6.7 expansion,  the Sunday school draws 1,100 students on a Sunday . Hard to separate the minister form the ministry, when it comes to an evangelist preacher like Waldrep.  I other editors will now take a look at notability here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * nice work. i have withdrawn my delete !vote. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Checking references mentioned above. The Pigeon Forge article is behind a paywall, and the Google search link doesn't work. That's a mention of a road near the event being used for parking. There's more on that event from the convention center.. Waldrep is on the program, but he's not the main speaker; David Jeremiah is. There's what looks like press coverage here, but note that it's marked "submitted", which means it's a press release. The Decatur Baptist Church article doesn't say it's Waldrep's church.. That article says it's the church of "Pastor Doug Ripley". Waldrep is mentioned in passing only. None of those references meet the depth of coverage requirement in WP:BASIC. Waldrep seems to be a promoter and event planner; he puts big events together, with big names on the bill. He isn't the main act. John Nagle (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My error on Decatur Baptist, he is (or, perhaps, used to be) pastor of Central Baptist in Decatur., Here's a wonderful old article  from back when he was rector of Central Baptist, he seems to have Art Linkletter keynote a conference, and also Barbara Bush.  but his is notable as an evangelist: radio show, books, conferences, preaching, more than as a pastor of a particular church.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nagle, This and the other conferences are, as the sources you cite say, was put together by Phil Waldrep ministries. He gets Christians like Tim Tebow and other evangelists as featured speakers, and is similarly invited to speak at evangelical events sponsored by other organizations.  He is not a mere promoter.  He is the head of a large, evangelical ministry that draws huge audiences to multiple events every year in many states.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2016 (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.