Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Stowell

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Stowell

Michael Stowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are maybe 20 mentions of Brighside Church, Michael Stowell, and/or the Blessing of the Bikes in local newspapers, but they are all routine coverage, and thus fail WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brightside Church. Dbratland (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Let me see... according to the discussion, it fits all the criteria for Wikepedia. Maybe a little religious discrimination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails anything I can find in WP:BIO. No WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Don't delete. These are not routine articles. These newspapers only do coverage on people of noteriety. They do not do routine articles. This all has been under review before and has passed all of the Wikipedia guidelines. Why are you attacking this person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete Please cut out the victim act. We don't think Pastor Stowell is non-notable because we here at Wikipedia are 97% Satanists, although we are, but rather because he is just plain non-notable i.e. no one says or writes anything about him except local newspapers, his own church, and things he writes himself. EEng (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Just kidding about the Satanism. Actually only maybe 60% of Wikipedia editors are Satanists. The rest are, of course, athiests. As to "these newspapers only do coverage on people of noteriety": that's absurd. By your reasoning, anyone who's ever been mentioned in a newspaper should have an article here. See WP:ROUTINE and WP:BASIC.

• Don't delete.Comment: Your reasoning is fallacious. News is news because it typically takes on topics and/or stories of interest to sell papers, not doing the routine. Unless, it's the weather. The newspaper does regular sports articles on pro atheletes but would they be called routine? But a pastor is routine? Most people I have read about on WIkipedia or no more notable than this guy. Why pick on his page? It has already been posted on here for over four or five years from what I can tell. It apparently has passed the guidelines. I think you are grabbing for straws, nitpicking. I don't think your are kidding about your other comments. I think you are displaying classic religious discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've clarified the tag on your second comment to remove the implication that a second person shares your views. My reasoning is sound -- it's my premises you dispute, but in fact my premises are correct and yours are incorrect: see WP:ARTICLEAGE, WP:ITSINTHENEWS, WP:OTHERSTUFF. On the lack of evidence of notability for this pastor in particular, see WP:BASIC (wherein please note the requirement for "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," as well as the depth-of-coverage provisions). And as to your certainty that he is being belittled as part of the larger masterplan of antireligious skulduggery here on Wikipedia, see WP:ADHOM. EEng (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't delete. [duplicate recommendation from same IP] -larger masterplan of antireligious skulduggery here on Wikipedia. Isn't that a funny way to say that you are not showing religious discrimination, when you really are. I'm not sure in England how the reporters decide what is routine and what isn't, but here in America it isn't routine reporting. It sounds like you are really grabbing for straws here to disqualify this article, when it has already been approved many times! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Strikethrough of multiple !voting. Peridon (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Stunned query Do you really know so little about Wikipedia that you think that, because my username is EEng, I am in England? 03:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The discussion about the church needs to be kept separate. It's possible that Brightside Church is notable but Michael Stowell isn't, or vice versa. I note that most of the newspaper articles about about local church events - I'm not sure if they say anything about Stowell himself. It's hard to take seriously an anonymous editor whose makes accusations of a "larger masterplan of antireligious skulduggery" [sic]. But in any case, I don't know what "it has already been approved many times" means. StAnselm (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. StAnselm (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable enough for an WP article. Being a pastor does not make you notable.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Don't Delete [duplicate recommendation from same IP] Really....reallly... how subjective is that?

It's not subjective in the least, as "Is a pastor" isn't listed as a notability qualification in WP:N or its associated guidelines. EEng (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete To judge from article creations (and quite a few deletions) here, I would think that in the USA being a pastor and founding a church is beaten in terms of numbers by being a rapper (and founding your own label). But not by much. As Bobbyd2011 says, being a pastor doesn't make you notable. Nor does founding a church. Blessing the bikes might be new in West Michigan, but it's been done for a long time over here. (I used to know a 'flying bishop' whose 'diocese' was purely bikers.) I can't access the references, but the summaries look run of the mill, although indicating the flair for publicity that a pastor needs nowadays. I am not anti-religious, having written for, and been performed in, churches. I am pro-encyclopaedia, and not everything can be in any encyclopaedia. Peridon (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Don't Delete [duplicate recommendation from same IP] Eeng - their is no doubt that you are in England - who else would use the term skulldiggery? Except the English? There are many sub par articles in Wikipedia and this is not one of them. The references all refer to Michael and the churches he started, and the Blessing of the Bikes. The English Mike Stowell seems to have your support, but his page is routine in it's references. Why not go after him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, aren't you cheeky! What a lot of rot and bollocks -- are you mad? You seem to have got a bee in your bonnet and a twist in your knickers, but I'd rather we not row about this. Why don't you have a nice cup of tea, or enjoy a pint at the local pub? Or a relaxing drive on the motorway in your roadster to the local high street where you can buy a spanner at the local ironmonger's. Maybe a holiday by the seaside will do you some good. In a fortnight you'll have forgotten all about your vicar's article being deleted. EEng (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. Have you called your mum lately?

• Struck multiple voting and restored votes which were modified by the above IP. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• And did it again since IP keeps removing <d>strikeouts</d>. EEng (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Skulduggery is the British spelling, skullduggery the American. 'skulldiggery' is an American typo. It's not an English English word, but from Scots. Aren't the British allowed to be commenting in this discussion? BTW EEng - you slipped up there. We don't usually call them roadsters nowadays (unless we're making them for the American market...). We call them 'convertibles' or 'sports cars' if they're particularly uncomfortable. Mike Stowell is well referenced and in accordance with the policies on sportsmen, and not relevant to this discussion. Articles of five years standing can be and are deleted if not found to be in accordance with current policies. We're not attacking this Stowell. We're discussing an article about him. If the article can be brought in line with the notability policy, fair enough. At the moment, Blessing the Bikes seems to be the main point being hammered. As I said, in West Michigan it may be unusual. It's not unusual enough overall to base an article on. Peridon (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah-HA! So you, Peridon, are the mole, you closet Brit! Prepare to be burned at the stake! Or if you prefer, burnt! You'll be a crisp in no time, and Robert's your father's brother! EEng (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. The roadster anachronism was self-conscious -- couldn't resist after exposure to all that whimsy. I hate to break it to you (or perhaps you're just playing along) but roadster is not a term most Americans would recognize -- perhaps this is the marketing blunder which drove Leyland out of business?

Hardly closet when I've got a userbox that says 'This user speaks British English'... and used the words 'over here' above. Someone must use the term roadster. We haven't since the 20s, except on things for export. Anyway, this is getting OT, if not OTT. Peridon (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete: This article has nothing to do with Christianity. Has anyone checked the education references? [comment 22:05, February 2, 2011 by User:Jarnigin]]

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.