Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade Burleson


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wade Burleson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a single reliable source, let alone the multiple, primary coverage from reliable sources that would be required to have an article. Self-published or minor press books are not notable either. It's basically a resume. Subject is minor Satanism promoter, so would need FRINGE policy coverage as well if article remains. DreamGuy (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He's not a Satanism promoter, surely. That's not what the article says. Let's not make things worse, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He promotes it to fight against something that doesn't exist. What would you call it? DreamGuy (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not only is the nominator's commentary completely unnecessary and simply asking for controversy, my searches simply found nothing to suggest better yet aside from some links at News, Books and browser searches. Notifying who lists to be notified of Christianity subjects.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello? Just stating the facts. Your added commentary is unnecessary. DreamGuy (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. no clear notability, as author or otherwise. No major positions or awards.  DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Dave for commenting, I actually pinged a while ago for Articles for deletion/Jayanth Munigala and it's gotten consensus if you wish to close it as such or comment either way. Cheers, SwisterTwister   talk  07:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * keep This article from The Oklahoman is an impressive source; Chairing the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma is a big deal. Plus he is a national figure . E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment -- We normally keep articles on bishops of major denominations. Should that be extended to the senior state officers of other denominations?  If so, we should keep him.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources  Here  the Washington Post describes a blog post of his in some detail; here:  The Christian Century discusses a position he took; here: [] thttp://www.christianpost.com/news/backlash-over-muslim-seminary-student-sparks-emotional-apology-from-paige-patterson-at-sbc-121446/he Christian Post does; and again:  - all of these articles do more than quote and describe him, they discuss his position on political or theological issues at some length.  And there are more.  All it takes is to actually do a search and actually look at the articles that come up.  People unwilling to do that should not bring articles to AFD, and should not iVote. Clearly, the page needs improvement.  But equally clear is  the fact that the Nom did not  read the news stories cited in the article before bringing this to AFD (if he had, he could not have characterized Burleson as a "Satanism promoter" or as "fringe").  WP:TROUT to Nom.  There ought, in fact, to be some stronger reprimand to Nom for bringing this article to AFD with that degree of inaccurate characterization.  TROUT also to SisterTwister for her assertion that she ran searches and "found nothing".   It is time to close this AFD that NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED with a KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to:, , , , , , , , . Pinging discussion participants to review the sources I have provided above . North America1000 07:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm not sure so I'll wait to see what the others say. BTW, somehow (and this has happened with other pings), I never got this one and only noticed it because I watchlisted this AfD. SwisterTwister   talk  07:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep in light of multiple RS coverage found and listed above. Jclemens (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2015 (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.