Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creighton Lovelace

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 keep. bainer (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creighton Lovelace

Was tagged as speedy, but claims notability, so User:Kappa removed the tag. Original reason given was "not notable". howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete An otherwise completely non-notable local pastor whose only tenuous claim to fame is some media attention for a sign he put up by his church for a few days? Sounds too non notable for a Wikipedia article. --Wingsandsword 01:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep The rewrite emphasizes the magnitude of the incident and pushes it over the threshold into notability. --Wingsandsword 03:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with Kappa that the verified claim of making national news saves it from Speedy territory, but I still don't think it's article material. If anything, could be merged with his church or perhaps another article on Chistian-Islamic religious tensions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. All major US networks covered the story. The Associated Press covered it and it gained attention from international media. I'll be editing the article in a moment. Durova 02:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Revisions posted. Durova 02:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I agree with Durova. The improvements to the article are superb and professional. If a student is doing research, Wikipedia ought to have a dossier or article on this event or personality for information. I would keep it. Creigl 03:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As a formality, we should mention that you created the article in question. Kappa 06:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The information provided is verifiable, and Wikipedia doesn't have or need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Anyone who has made it into national news is notable, in my opinion. —Simetrical (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Durova. Movementarian 04:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable unpleasant incident. Thanks for the references and proof of media coverage Durova. Danieltown Baptist Church Kappa 06:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia does have a notability requirement: it's in the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and we should not carry content that does not belong in an encyclopaedia. This, meanwhile, is a good, verifiable, encyclopaedia article. Good work, Durova. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done to Durova for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 09:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is more of a news article than an encyclopedia article (not in quality, in permanence of fame). Merging into another article may be appropriate. -- Kjkolb 09:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nice job on the rewrite, Durova, but without the news stories out of Gitmo, this never would have been noticed.--SarekOfVulcan 09:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Without the other scandal this probably wouldn't have happened. Since this did receive international news coverage, I decided a well sourced and objective article is worthy of the encyclopedia. This is a very hot button issue. Hot button issues in general are prone to distortion. Suppose a rumor takes shape that Christian Churches in the United States support desecrating the Koran. A concise account can help put those fears to rest. Durova 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. The incident is certainly notable, but the article isn't about Creighton Lovelace. It's about the incident involving the Koran. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per Mgm - Wezzo 14:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment it redirects from Danieltown Baptist Church, links from Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005, and is in the Islam and controversy category. That should be enough for people who want to find it. Durova 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Move (not sure where yet), which I gues is the same vote as Keep and rename. This isn't really about Lovelace. Maybe The Koran Needs to be Flushed? Not sure yet. -R. fiend 18:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't a biography by any conceivable stretch of the term. The guy had his 15 minutes of fame (15 seconds, more like) and will almost fade into the woodwork. Briefly mention it in Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005, at best. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 17 December 2005 (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.