Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Connor

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 of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Connor

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Advertisement/promotional for non-notable televangelist. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T

Keep. Despite the fact that I made mention on the talk page in response to SJ's suggested deletion tag that Brian Connor was never a televangelist he repeats it here deliberately, I suppose, to conjure up images of Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart. Now why, I wonder, would he do that if not to manipulate people? Dwain 16:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many people have contacted Good Shepherd Institute through this article. Don't remove something that's making a positive contribution. - Brian Connor — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianConnor (talk • contribs) Note - user's only edits are to this page --Tyrenius 07:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Though he might have a claim to notability if all these media appearances are true, there are no sources. Also a note to Mr Connor: Whether or not this article or your institute makes a positive contribution is not relevant for inclusion on Wikipedia. Notability is. Sandstein 21:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are now a number of sources from around the globe listed including the television appearances. You can actually order transcripts of some of these programs. I first learned of this gentleman from seeing him on Dateline NBC last year. Dwain 04:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, he's got an IMDb article, and seemed to have made at least one appearance. -- cds^(talk) 23:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that this isn't enough: IMDb lists anyone, regardless of notability, and we are not a duplicate of IMDb. Per WP:BIO, we only list "notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions". Sandstein 04:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, well-known television productions and networks include Dateline NBC, Sixty Minutes 2, and Primetime all of whom consider Dr. Connor an important individual in deliverance ministery. If these "well-known" programs consider Dr. Connor notable who the heck are you to suggest that he isn't? Dwain

Comment: I am a Wikipedia editor, and Dateline NBC, Sixty Minutes 2, and Primetime are not. It is we editors who decide on notability for Wikipedia purposes, not TV stations. Please keep your comments civil. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandstein (talk • contribs) . Dang! Forgot to sig, thanks for doing it for me. Sandstein 20:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!! There are so few methods by which people who need help can find it. This is one way suffering people can find professional assistance in a field that is not well understood and often misunderstood. Please don't take away that connection. ALSO - notability is easily verifiable. NBC and TLC channels are easily referenced if you must verify appearance, along with articles in print in FHM magazine and other sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.41.184.108 (talk • contribs) . Note - new user, first two edits to this page -- Tyrenius 06:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I have seen some of the referenced productions. They DO exist and they are GOOD information which, I think, is the purpose of the Wikipedia!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tailwheeler (talk • contribs) . Note - new user, first edits 2 June -- Tyrenius 07:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually think this person is probably notable enough, but the article itself is poorly written and POV. Take out all the gushy advertorialism, add some more hard biographical info and verify some of the sources, and I'd vote to keep.--Anchoress 07:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Anchoress. Tyrenius 09:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written article about a notable person in his field. No evidence that this person is or was a televangelist. Carr
- The issue is not whether he's a televangelist or not, but whether he's notable or not, whatever he does. If he's a notable televangelist then that would be grounds for inclusion. Tyrenius 15:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Good Shepherd Institute. JoshuaZ 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article's few sources do not provide evidence of notability. Article requires verifiable sources in order to demonstrate the subject's notability. Regardless of a subject's usefulness / good works / etc., notability as demonstrated by verifiable sources is the gold standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Docether 19:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but every single source listed is verifiable. What are you going on about? Dwain 02:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The three linked articles do not provide good evidence of notability. The Guardian UK article only contains a single quote from Dr. Connor -- he is not the article's subject, nor does it claim that he is particularly notable. The article in the Charleston Post and Courier does focus on Dr. Connor (to some extent), but this looks like evidence of his local notability (the Post and Courier's circulation is about 100,000, which puts it roughly in the top 200 US newspapers in terms of circulation, but it's billed as "local news," so this is less than clearcut). Since Dr. Connor is (as far as I can tell) a Baptist, the Baptist Press article is the equivalent of a notice in a trade journal. The other items can't be checked online, so I can't tell whether they're evidence of Dr. Connor's notability. So -- sorry, but I just don't see clear evidence of notability per WP:BIO here. If you can add other linked sources to this article, I'd be glad to revise my opinion. On the other hand, WP:BIO doesn't list religious figures as a category, which might be something to consider codifying at a later date. Best, Docether 13:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: there is no requirement to provide online verification. If notability is verified by citing print publication this is perfectly acceptable, unless of course there is evidence to doubt the veracity of the citation. I do not believe that is the case in this instance~~, particularly with the religious affiliation of the contributors.~~ Tyrenius 00:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the three linked citations, and they provided at best marginal proof of notability. Therefore, I'm inclined to suspect that the other (nonlinked) citations are probably similar. I encourage any knowledgeable contributors to add linked citations which make a stronger case for notability per WP:BIO. I'm not sure how the religious affiliation of the contributors matters one way or another -- I try to assume good faith regardless of the contributor's background. Best, Docether 12:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Just an added factor but I have struck it anyway. Tyrenius 14:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP*** Dr. Connor is doing God's work. I have known Dr. Connor personally for 10 years. He was the former paster at our church in Mt. Pleasant, SC and is a very spirit-filled minister. God is using him very strongly in spiritural warfare helping oppressed people. I know spiritural warfare exists because my husband and I have experienced it ourselves and we believe in Dr. Connor. Until it happens to someone you love, you don't have any idea it exists. Thank God for Dr. Connor. kellyc...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.234.25 (talk • contribs) user's first edit
STRONG KEEP!!!! I know Dr. Connor personally. Several years ago he gave up a very good pastorate to "go toe to toe with Satan." Many, many people have been set free through his "Good Shepherd Institute" ministry. If you go to this web site, you will find that he does not charge a fee for helping the oppressed. He helps others out of love. This is rare today. Please keep this site open so that others may find help. Thanks. Redneck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.234.25 (talk • contribs) user's second edit, same user as comment directly above

Please note: these kind of comments, however well meaning, are likely to be considered irrelevant on wiki, which exists as an encyclopedia of prominent people, not wonderful people. First time contributions to wiki as above are generally disregarded, as being "point of view". Please study guidelines on BIO also in order to make a viable contribution. Thank you. Tyrenius 01:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.