Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torben Søndergaard


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Torben Søndergaard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Remove text from unreliable sources written by Torben Søndergaard's himself from the Torben_Søndergaard article makes the article almost non-existent as 3/4 sources are created by the subject.

And more should go according to the Wiki-standard. The article is simply not written according to the Wikipedia standard as hardly any of the sources verifiable, have no translations of sources in other languages, or are accessible. They are self-published, biased and the whole article is based on a claim of a movement that's non-existent.

There are hardly multiple reliable sources. The main sources are some tabloid newspapers and then Torben Søndergaard's own books, own website, own YouTube channel, and own opinion pieces in a minor Christian Danish newspaper. There is no movement. It's simply grandiose words from an upcoming YouTuber and conference speaker. When the critical stuff is gone from the article, this Wiki article is at best advertisement for a minor Danish ministry edited it's followers, fx RobbertDam, and the HMX-something guy who made a tutorial to other followers how to edit this page. The reason this page is getting attention is because Torben Søndergaard posted a link to it on his Facebook-page asking for help to make it positive - which is just as bad as negative - and then angry followers shared it.

And the Last Reformation is not really a worldwide movement. Writing a book, buying a website, making a Facebook-page, uploading videos to Youtube while stating something a hundred times does not make something real. This idea of a worldwide movement is simply an unfounded claim by Torben Søndergaard who simply hopes for a worldwide movement. There's maybe a few thousand active supporters worldwide and they, of course, vigorously all claim to have a movement, but - let's stay objective here - in fact, it's simply a claim.

In reality Søndergaard


 * has established three minor housechurches in Denmark with less than 100 members in total. None of them are existing today.
 * has 10-15 seminars a year with between 100 to about 1.000 people attending
 * no other established ministry anywhere else in the world than Denmark, where he for the most part seems to be unknown.
 * only a few thousands more or less active supports worldwide at best

Is he controversial? Probably. Does this make him noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia page? No.

Just look at the very modest activity on his Facebook page. This can in no way be a worldwide movement or a wiki-noteworthy person.

--HowDoesThisEvenwork (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only independent sources in the article, or that I can find elsewhere, are about the single issue of the subject's ideas about autism, and fall foul of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. And there's also the issue of reliability of those sources - The Sun is certainly not a reliable source, but I can't speak for the reliability of the Danish, Irish and Spanish publications cited. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with above. Should be deleted. This article should have been written better but probably can't. He's too unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohannesSve (talk • contribs) 00:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)  — JohannesSve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Agree. He is too unknown. If you Google his name you don't get many hits. Charismatic preachers that have much more followers than him, also don't have their own page (check Randy Clark for example) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulMerkel (talk • contribs) 05:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)  — PaulMerkel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete and salt. Delete per nom. Can't find much about the guy, except from his own sites and channels. Salt because given the article's history and sources it'll most likely be created again. And again.  Yinta n  06:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Note: the article talk page mentions "an organized attempt to delete the page by followers of the subject" being coordinated on Torben Søndergaard's Facebook page, including "a guide for others on how to 1) create autoconfirmed user 2) then try "Proposed deletion", 3) move on to "Discussed deletion"". --McGeddon (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 19:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I think he just about pushes through WP:GNG, has a lot of coverage from local and continental sources, including the independant. People saying he has 'hardly any following', 20k followers on facebook is nothing to be snuffed at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "the independant"? I can't see any source cited to a publication of that or a similar name, but I might be missing something because many of the sources omit the publication name. And, sorry, but 20k, 200k or 2000k followers on Facebook are to be "snuffed at" (I think you mean "sniffed at") because we require significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which Facebook is not. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cult-whose-leader-claims-demons-7916787 (UK national newspaper), https://revolutionforjesus.com/2016/06/11/torben-sondergaard-and-the-last-reformation/, http://www.thepathoftruth.com/false-teachers/torben-sondergaard.htm, http://gccsatx.com/torben-sondergaard-last-reformation-cult, http://www.thejournal.ie/autism-heal-event-2735835-Apr2016/ (Irish National Newspaper) , http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/mum-warns-parents-religious-group-7849826 (another irish newspaper) , https://www.infochretienne.com/evangeliste-danois-defie-chretiens-propose-de-demontrer-puissance-de-dieu-rues-interview/ (French national media source), http://www.dublinlive.ie/incoming/controversial-last-reformation-preacher-coming-11247700, (dublin local newspaper). There is a lot more. Also http://www.dictionary.com/browse/snuffed — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * When you said "the independant" I thought you were referring to a specific source, such as The Independent, but I now see that you meant independent sources in general. And thanks for your link about "snuffed at" - it's an expression that I've never heard before but will now start using it. As for the sources, I would start by pointing out that the tabloid Daily Mirror is not regarded as a reliable source, and the others all seem to be in the same vein. Even if some of them are reliable, this still falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion preferred As compared to the original article, most of the controversial views have been removed for being poorly sourced. This page is now almost entirely based on the subject's own books, facebook and YouTube channels. If these kinds of sources are ok, more about the subject's beliefs and movement may be added in the future. It looks more like a self-serving page. Is this consistent with the policy for BLPs? Also, I don't think the subject's beliefs and practice eg water baptism, baptism with the Holy Spirit, casting out demons, faith healing etc are unique doctrines. They already exist in different denominations. The controversy against him is more a debate of theology already existed among these denominations. For example, the warning about baptism practice by the Lutheran Mission of Denmark. Nothing new about it. This kind of controversy deserves another page to set out the different views of different denominations rather than individuals. A BLP page is not the appropriate place for this. For the autism claim, I think the subject only mentioned once about the healing of autistic girl and it was not even him doing the prayer. Then this lady from Autistic Rights Together issued a warning about it but she didn't tell us if she had proved that the claim was false. These kinds of claim and dismissal both need to be verified. Including this in the page is neither here nor there and meaningless to the readers. For the 2008 festival saga, it is just an incident so insignificant and lack of details to be worth-mentioning. Wikipedia has to do better to protect its integrity and not to allow a page to be filled with junk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khwal (talk • contribs) 09:24, 19 October 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.