Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Batchelor

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. With all respect, I would recommend that any newer participants opining for deletion keeping here review and understand Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographical subjects, and consider asking questions at the Teahouse, at WP:TEAHOUSE, to better understand those criteria before attempting to appeal or recreate. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Batchelor

[edit]
Doug Batchelor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've gone through a dozen pages of Google hits, and can find nothing--that is nothing reliable, because the internets are full of hits for this person from some Christian sect or other. Being a minister is not a reason for notability in its own right, and I do not see how this person would pass the GNG. Please see the article history for the full version of this article (including a dozen links to his own publications) and a bit of edit warring between two editors, about doctrine I suppose. Tricky stuff of course. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Here are 63 WP:RS that show Doug Batchelor is both notable and worthy to have his own WP page Bradburns (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Here are 42 sources that are worth mentioning Bradburns (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bradburns (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bradburns, Please, don't just drop a bunch of useless links in here. No one is going to be impressed by the results of a Google search or some list from Barnes and Noble. Read WP:RS; right now you're not helping the cause. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I added formatting and the word "keep". Bradburns, that there are other articles for possibly non-notable people is not our concern here. How many likes he has is also no one's concern. Plato has zero likes (he doesn't even have a Facebook page, though I didn't check MySpace) and is very notable, because people wrote about him in books. The link you offered is not about him, and doesn't even mention him. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, Your right, I'm not helping your cause. However, here is a list of links (as I stated above) that are external proving why Doug's page should be kept. These are valid sources. Yes, one was a book search on google and barns and noble for Doug's books. This is to help people that have gone through "dozen pages of Google hits, and can find nothing". This does help the cause, because you wanted the links to be "about him, and ... [to] mention him." These valid sources are from NRB, TBN, DirectTV, Lifetime, Daystar, and shows he is well published, well seen, and well searched for. I don't know how much more valid WP would need. There are plenty of other pages for people with less traffic and less popularity on WP.Bradburns (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The cause is Wikipedia. No, your links are useless, as anyone with some wiki experience can tell you. You obviously didn't look at RS. But hey, don't take my advice, why would you. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you already said "keep" once. What you've done with the formatting of this list I don't know but I can't fix it. If you really think that a Facebook photo of someone holding up an award is somehow proof of anything, then you might well be lacking the WP:COMPETENCE required to edit here. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would do everyone well to review the advisories of WP. I sense some personal attacks with "anyone with some wiki experience" and "lacking the WP:COMPETENCE required" are not necessary and go against the WP:PA section. This shows your personal agenda against Doug Batchelor and does not add to your cause. A personal message will suffice if you are concerned about my references or my ability to find legitimate sources. Yes, there is a photo of Doug holding an award with other notable figures, this is a secondary reference. There are many, many more references and articles about awards, books, shows, commercials, and networks which are completely inline with the WP:RS. There is also plenty of other resources. Please, hold your peace.Bradburns (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Keep] - Doug Batchelor is definitely a well-known and stand-alone subject and personality, and warrants a separate Wikipedia article, because he is certainly known, sourced, and clearly notable. (There are people who have WP articles about them that are not even nearly as well-known and heard and seen as Batchelor.) As you can see from the edit history in the article, Bradburns and I obviously have not always agreed (because, frankly speaking, of his blatant POV in parts of the article, and turning the article into an infomercial and fluff piece, in non-compliance to WP standards, and also suppression of certain sourced facts, etc, but where I modified and fixed the problem, where initially I put a POV "neutrality disputed" tag on top of the article that I later removed), but, Drmies, I seriously cannot believe that you put the "deletion" tag for this article. There's no good warrant for that really. Your argument about no real third-party sources. But the AmazingFacts website is ok for an article like this. Also there's the issue of "ignore all rules" and "WP:COMMON SENSE"...that it seems you're not taking into account. There's no good justification to delete this article. Regarding the SDAC minister Doug Batchelor. He, by himself, apart from his "Amazing Facts" website and lectures etc, though partly because of it, is certainly a stand-alone subject. That's not really even debatable. He's widely known and seen. The article should definitely stay, but not with POV wording and tone. That's all. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gabby Merger, and Bradburns, I understand how you feel, but the problem here is one of verifiability: you need reliable sources that prove that your subject is important enough to pass our guidelines. Simply being a preacher isn't enough, and in neither of your comments are sources provided that prove your subject is notable per, for instance, WP:GNG. Thank you, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Delete] I tried to source it. He does get quoted a little in the press. But the links following his books on the page lead only to the publisher, and I couldn't find and reviews, let alone profiles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes--and I was very surprised that I wasn't able to find anything; I'm glad I'm not the only one. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Keep] Doug Batchelor has been on many main stream broadcasts including the Discovery Channel, ABC Family, and Lifetime Television. His page on wikipedia has on average around 150 page views a day. Less than some other televangelists but not so few as to make him someone who is not searched. He is number 10 on ranker.com's list of top evangelists (http://www.ranker.com/list/famous-televangelists/alby-thompson). He is easily one of the most recognized members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Many other "public figures" on wikipedia have much smaller page views such as Tomm Coker and Jim Balent. Well known comic book artist Neal Adams has similar stats to Mr. Batchelor. All in all I think it would be irresponsible to remove someone who is viewed this often. joninlincoln (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC) — joninlincoln (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I don't know what the value of Ranker is. If that information can be reliably sourced (I see no sourcing on that website), it might mean something. But that Ranker's entry is next to a list of "The Sexiest Howard Stern Regulars" (apparently we can vote right now), and that the Batchelor "article" (copied from Wikipedia) has an ad for dating Chinese women, make me doubt the seriousness and reliability of that particular website. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Keep] Whoever is recommending deletion of Doug Batchelor's page must have a personal agenda. Batchelor is as public as a religious figure gets, just type his name into any search engine and there are pages of information. The first three pages of a google search are dedicated to his work. (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=doug+batchelor). Mighty Flower (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Mighty Flower (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • If all these brandspankingnew accounts could read up on policies (and formatting, signing, etc), that would be great. As for your Google search, it proves nothing. See WP:GOOGLEHITS. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This article reads like advertising copy. I have little idea whether he is notable, but this does not read like an objective encyclopaedic article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Keep] - Drmies, I'm confident you have an agenda to remove Doug Batchelor's page. Joel Osteen and others are preachers, just like Batchelor, they wrote books, just like Batchelor. Why don't you remove Joel Osteen's page, as some of the sources on his page point back to his own ministry's website. How credible is that? The point is, if you open your eyes and read the above links, you can see very easily that Doug Batchelor is an accomplished preacher or evangelist to be politically correct. Here's a few articles where Doug Batchelor is mentioned in the main stream news. Some of the below sources state "Doug Batchelor, a popular television and radio evangelist ..." Apparently the consensus is that he's popular and well known, just because you've never heard of him doesn't mean he's not. Doug Batchelor has been on the following broadcasting networks, Lifetime, Discovery, ABC Family, BET, The Church Channel, The Word Network and Trinity Broadcasting Network. Batchelor has been/is on a LOT more networks than a lot of other evangelsits, are you going to remove all of them as well, that would be only fair? Just TBN alone covers 98% of the US and is in 102 million households. They are on more than 10,000 cable systems and are on 72 satelite transponder footprints, covering every country on the planet, except for Antarctica, how's that for publicity? TBN's potential audience is 2.7 BILLION viewers world wide. (Directly from TBN) I don't have time to waste, but taking a few minutes to google Doug Batchelor, yes google, where would Wikipedia be without google, probably not existent. By the way, Batchelor is also on over 200 radio stations, which I would be more than glad to list every single radio station if you really care. [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moreaboutjesus (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC) — Moreaboutjesus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

His argument is not so much that Batchelor is not notable. He certainly is, and Drmies will concede that. His point is that there presumably are not "reliable sources" or third-party references for Doug Batchelor to warrant a separate Wikipedia article. It's debatable. But there's also the point of "ignore all rules" as WP technically does not have "rules", just general policies, recommendations, standards, and things that should be taken in context. Drmies (in my opinion) is being over-scrupulous much, a bit, and ignoring the general drift, and also that the "Amazing Facts" website is a "reliable source" and is fine for an article like this. (And other sources were in the article...not just the Amazingfacts one...in this article that he basically chopped up and removed whole sub-sections, that were not necessary to remove.) Overall, though he may have a sliver of a point in a way, the article should remain. This Seventh Day Adventist minister and evangelist (though I personally of course do NOT agree with him in everything) is too big to not have a WP page for. Even if there is a little lack of third-party sources. No WP article is perfect...nor can be. Everything has to be taken into consideration, not just one. Regards.............. Gabby Merger (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Keep] I am a long time user of Wikipedia, but a first time editor because it came to my attention that this page was to be deleted. I researched the details of what qualifies a page to be deleted and found that the criteria is lacking, namely the one that calls for "common sense". The nominator for deletion seems to be biased, and I hope that however the consensus is judged, his/her personal agenda is taken into consideration. First, the reason given for deletion was after he/she had "gone through a dozen pages of Google hits" without finding the evidence of notability even though the guidelines WP:GOOGLEHITS state that "since an article can be verified as notable entirely by offline sources such as books and newspapers, a lack of search results there is not proof in itself that an article should be kept or deleted." It also says that Google shouldn't be entirely dismissed, but it is "the quality of the search engine results [that] matters more than the raw number." Even so, the same editor made the comment: "No one is going to be impressed by the results of a Google search". Now, I am persuaded, that this page is well within the guidelines of Wikipedia. The reasons have been stated pretty well by other "keepers", which are not to be taken lightly. One of the greatest evidences I see of the need to KEEP this page is Doug Batchelor's inclusion in the List of television evangelists. Of the dozens of names in this list, his is one of the most recognized today. Everyone deserves to know who this man of influence is, even if some disagree with is theology. I think it is odd that much of the material that demonstrates Doug Batchelor's noteworthyness has been deleted from the article. Editors, please take note of what has been removed. WyattAllenSDA (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC) — WyattAllenSDA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since we clearly have a large amount of new accounts and accounts related to the article creation voting here, I am relisting the nomination in hope to attract more regular Wikipedia users.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the assertions made above, I cannot find coverage to show that Batchelor would meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. He's received some coverage via Spectrum magazine, but this isn't enough to show notabiltiy via Wikipedia's guidelines. The thing about offline sources is that there has to be a reasonable belief that offline sources exist, meaning that we need to see some sort of evidence that Batchelor received coverage. This policy isn't meant to be used to say "nobody can find sources but notability isn't reliant on online sources so this should be kept", but rather to refer to instances where there is a record of someone receiving coverage in news outlets where those articles have not been transferred to the Internet. In other words, you still need to prove that there is coverage by at least providing enough information to where an editor can track down the newspaper/RS and verify its content. I can find nothing here to show that Batchelor has ever been the focus of offline coverage, at least none that would be substantial enough to warrant inclusion. As far as his TV series goes, having a TV series does not automatically guarantee notability. It can make it more likely, but it is not a guarantee and there are multiple television series and hosts that fail notability guidelines. I've seen hundreds of programs and hosts have articles deleted, some of whom were on extremely major television channels during prime time viewing hours. It all boils down to coverage in independent and reliable sources. Now when it comes to Google hits, the point of that guideline is that it's meant to prevent people from quoting a number of hits and using that to define notability (or the lack thereof) without actually going through the hits. In other words, Drmies did exactly what the policy requires: that he go through the hits to see if there is anything that Wikipedia would consider to be usable. The thing about religious figures is that it's usually extremely difficult for them to gain coverage in places Wikipedia would consider to be reliable, partially because the amount of places that will report on them that are considered to be RS are pretty few and far between - and they can only report on a limited amount of people/topics, which means that they have to pick and choose who/what they report on. The more mainstream sources usually don't report on religious figures until they're very mainstream and while that's unfortunate, Wikipedia still requires coverage in RS and it's not up to Wikipedia to make exceptions for someone because they're not reported on as much as you might think that they deserve to be reported on. I'm sorry, but I cannot see where he passes notability guidelines. I'd say redirect to the ministry, but I don't particularly see where that really passes notability guidelines either and besides, that'd leave a redirect that has little to no explanation as to why it redirects there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although this was not so cut and dry for me as it was for Tokyogirl79 and Drmies. A google news search does return some hits, but none meet the "substantial coverage" requirement. The sparcity of those hits also does not speak well to his notability by Wikipedia standards. I won't go into this too much as Tokyogirl79 and Drmies have covered the detail admirably. Onel5969 TT me 13:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Something that should be kept in mind by all the "delete" voters, and especially in a context and article like this:
The stance of ignoring all rules is itself a rule, constituting a paradox.
A famous quote of Ralph Waldo Emerson is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."[117]
In 2001, Stephen King made "ignore all rules" the second rule of reading in his autobiographical On Writing.[118]
At Wikipedia
"Ignore All Rules" is a "favorite" rule of the English-language open content encyclopedia, Wikipedia.[119] Its formulation is generally (emphasis in original), "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."[120] Wikipedia has a tradition of treating rules skeptically, except for this rule.[119] The philosophy or mantra was championed by Larry Sanger[121] (a co-founder of Wikipedia, active 2001–2002), who made it the first of a set of site guidelines[122] (but later rejected it);[121] it continues to be disseminated by Jimmy Wales (the still active co-founder of Wikipedia).[120] Gabby Merger (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly a COI editor, and insulting long-term non-partisan users does not help your cause.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a Seventh Day Advenist. So... Excuse me? First, how exactly did I "insult" any user on here by simply referring and reminding about the "ignore no rules" matter? Number two, how are you not "insulting" me by calling me "clearly a COI editor"?? (A Conflict Of Interest editor). You're so out of line and inaccurate (and pot-kettle-black) in your comment, it's like not funny. Let me set you straight. You're completely WRONG about my being a "COI editor" because (guess what, blanter), I'm NOT a Seventh Day Adventist!!! Not only that, I disagree with Seventh Day Adventists on SCORES of things. I don't like Batchelor. I disagree with him on many points, though I agree with him on some things. I think that he's basically full of himself, a wind-bag, and doctrinally (in many important ways) in error. So, you wanna take that back? You're confusing me with the other "keep" editors on here who are clearly Seventh Day Adventists. But let me re-iterate. I am not, never was, and never will be a Seventh Day Adventist and "Sabbatarian". Nor will I agree with SDA theology and eschatology or many points in their soteriology. I hope I made it quite clear that your assumption was way off base and plain wrong. I'm not an SDA. Not now, not ever. And again, my simply bringing up the policy of "ignore all rules" in certain contexts is far from "insulting" anyone...like you did with me. You violated WP:Civility and also "assume good faith". So please be careful. You owe me an apology, but some how, given how you commented and assumed arrogantly, I doubt I'll get it. Regards....... Gabby Merger (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you did not like being called a COI editor and reminding that you summarily insulted the delete voters, but this is just a sheer fact. Sorry for that.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you just how exactly I "insulted" anybody, simply because I put in the "ignore all rules" thing...and also I asked just how I am a "COI editor", when I already explained to you that I'm not even an SDA, nor do I agree with them. Maybe you're wrongly thinking that the paste that I did of the "ignore all rules" where it says "little minds" was my own words or something. They weren't. It was directly from the "ignore all rules" article. I can't help that. But I did not intentionally "insult" anyone, as you're imagining. But you assumed bad faith immediately and carelessly, for some reason. As I suspected (and I'm usually right about things) that you would not take back your accusation and false remarks, nor truly apologize, as, frankly speaking, I see that you're hasty and arrogant in assuming BAD faith, and not apologizing for your assumption, with NO basis. Just because I voted "keep" does NOT mean I'm a "COI editor". What "conflict of interest" do I supposedly have exactly, according to you? Because I edit some religious or theological articles sometimes? How so exactly? You have yet to explain (because you really have no answer obviously) just how exactly I'm a "conflict of interest" editor, when I'm not even a Seventh Day Adventist, and I made it clear that I don't even like Doug Batchelor. You're guilty of violating WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH. And as I said, be careful. Because you're showing yourself to be actually guilty of the nonsense you accused me of (with no sound or solid basis). You insulted ME...and assumed bad faith for no good reason. My simply reminding about "ignore all rules" is not necessarily "insulting" anyone here, nor does it show that I'm a "COI" anything. Gabby Merger (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please take me to ANI and stop this bullshitting.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're wrongly thinking that the paste that I did of the "ignore all rules" where it says "little minds" was my own words or something. They weren't. It was directly from the "ignore all rules" article. I can't help that. But I did not intentionally "insult" anyone, as you're imagining. But you assumed bad faith immediately and carelessly, for some reason. And now you're cursing for some reason, and being even more uncivil. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you repeatedly how exactly have I "insulted" anyone here. I never called anyone what you called me. I never assumed bad faith necessarily. All I did was vote "keep" and gave reasons as to why, that Batchelor is notable enough, and that drmies, though having a point, was a bit over-scrupulous on this matter, ignoring other things. Other "keep" voters were WAY more "insulting" than I was...if that's the case. And I put in the "ignore all rules" thing. You wrote (then deleted) that you don't care what I am, but you accused me of insulting people, and that I'm claiming I'm the one being insulted. You called me a "clear COI editor" and that's not "insulting"?? Just because I edited the article that must mean I'm a "Conflict Of Interest" editor? Simply because I contributed to the article? You have some weird definitions and assumptions, obviously. I was editing the article and so what? If there are "COI editors" on this page, it's not really me. Not by a long shot, by comparison. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please, I kindly request that we cordially continue to assume good faith, please? I would like to humbly request that everyone remove their comments that are off topic or directed at specific members, please? Let's make sure the WP admins know how much we care about Wikipedia and how much we value it as a resource, especially about topics we find important. This is not a war, it's not an argument, there are no winners or losers, just readers that are interested in topics, like Doug Batchelor, because they like (or dislike) him. Let's rally together to help WP make a better encyclopedia. I'm still holding my [keep] decision, and I've added more WP:RS that were previously undiscovered by all [delete] voters. I'd like to avoid any arguments, especially about tricky religious things on Batchelor's page. Bradburns (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At present, none of the ten references cited in the article contribute to notability, being an extremely small quote by the subject in a Washington Post article, a couple of obituaries, a youtube link, a dead link, and links showing his books exist(?). The references cited in this afd may look impressive but also do not show notability (i admit i have only glanced at them and have not carefully read them all (i tired:)) but (maybe foolishly) assume that the editors who are recommending keep them would have included notable ones in the article) Also, the argument given that other evangilists aren't so popular, hence are not as notable, please include them on afd if you truly believe so. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I've found about 30, I don't think that is necessary. Bradburns (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bradburns notable references or non-notable evangelists? If refs, please add them to the article, so the article can be improved; if evangelists please list them here so other editors may put them up for afd (as appropriate) to improve wikipedia.Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was speking of non-notable evangelists but, I would also contend that there are many notable sources that don't contain trivial mentions of him. I just modified my sources, check the first three. Bradburns (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which one of the 56 WP:RS links is a dead link? Bradburns (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability has not been established. The pastor is idolised and adored by his followers, but ignored by the mainstream media. The article has 10 refs, the first one in the Washington Post is a press release (carries the note "Copyright: For copyright information, please check with the distributor of this item, Religion News Service LLC.") and mentions Batchelor only in passing (one sentence, D. B. said...), he two NYT souces are obits of his parents and the other 7 refs are connected to the subject, or by the subject. The 122 refs cited here on the AfD pages are an array of unreliable sources, statements by people connected to the subject, trivial mentions, and ref-junk like links to Wikipedia articles and guideline pages. A clear case of WP:Bombardment and WP:BLUDGEON. Better get rid of it. Kraxler (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia would be a ghost town if it required references from the top 10 major news outlets, although this Doug Batchelor has it. What I am amazed at is why he is being removed and not 30 other evangelists that are less notable than he. Let's refrain from patronizing anyone by referring to Bombardment or BLUDGEON, everyone is just doing their job here. Let us all assume good faith. Bradburns (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any other evangelist is irrelevant here, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm afraid you didn't read BLUDGEON, so I'll quote from it: "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. It is typically seen at Articles for Deletion [etc.] Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote". They always have to have the last word, and normally will ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view. It is most common with someone who feels they have a stake in the outcome, or feels they own the particular article or subject matter. While they may have some very valid points, they get lost due to the dominant behavior and others are less likely to consider their viewpoints because of their behavior." [my bolding]. Read the other sections of the page also, and think about it. Kraxler (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've read this, but thanks for reiterating, I appreciate the conversation, but not the berating. Go ahead. You may have the last word. Bradburns (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kraxler. Not to be accused of "bludgeoning", as I doubt you'll change your vote. But we can't use the cop-out of "otherstuff" as being totally "irrelevant", because there's the point of "sky blue" and this guy Batchelor (though I don't personally like him either) is definitely notable and big enough to warrant a WP page if other lesser-known ministers and evangelists have articles that NO ONE (for some reason) puts a "delete" tag for. It's a matter of consistency and fairness. Period. Also...what you miss...is that there's the issue of "ignore all rules" and "WP:COMMON SENSE"...that it seems you're not taking into account. There's really no good justification to delete this article. Not in context. Regarding the SDA minister Doug Batchelor. He, by himself, apart from his "Amazing Facts" website and lectures etc, though partly because of it, is certainly a stand-alone subject. That's not really even debatable. He's widely known and seen. And the site "AmazingFacts" is overall fine for an article like this. The article should definitely stay, but not with POV wording and tone. That's all. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate for deletion all those evangelists who are less notable than Batchelor. It would be a service to Wikipedia, it would increase the consistency, and would be an act of supreme fairness to Batchelor. Kraxler (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Keep] Let's begin with a subject already mentioned, “Ignore all Rules” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignore_all_rules and put it into practice immediately and in so doing, I will refuse to login to the Wikipedia User/Editor Account, bypassing edit/user history or prestige associated therewith, and simply leave an IP Address [though I suppose I could ignore that too], which will presently and only be borrowed for this present edit/discussion. Let's take a look at the primary/original reason that this persons' [Douglas E Batchelor, to be designated D.E.B from here on out] wikipage was nominated for deletion.
Seeing as there was an original claim(s) made for deletion, I will focus upon that primarily, and largely, and then continue onto other areas.
User/Editor [to be shortened from here on as “U/E”] Drmies originally put forth the following claim as the reason for deletion, stating, “I've gone through a dozen pages of Google hits, and can find nothing--that is nothing reliable ...” This original claim relied upon “Google hits”, in which there was the admission that over “a dozen pages”, in which there “are full of hits for this person”.
Obviously, from a simple Google search and the “hits” thereof, we may all plainly see the many [over 12] pages associated with this person, D.E.B. in merely the English language portion of Google, without having considered other languages, etc.
Yet, later, this same U/E, Drmies, in rebuttal to U/E Mighty Flower in regards “Google”, stated, “... As for your Google search, it proves nothing. See WP:GOOGLEHITS.” I would agree with Drmies, that the “Google” search in and of itself “proves nothing”, which would also include the original claim for deletion by Drmies, and the moreso, since it was not the “Google Hits” themselves that prompted the deletion request, but Drmies personal lack of being able to find anything deemed “reliable” in whatever amount of time spent in looking.
Even with that stated, it also doesn't mean it discounts everything Google has to offer either, and we would be remiss in not utilizing such a tool properly, and taking into account what it brings to the surface of the net. In retrospect, the search Drmies did could not have been a very long or detailed search, for myself, in contrast [therefore not based on lack of evidence, but contrary, with evidence], from the first day notice that this person D.E.B. was up for deletion, taking an interest, took some considerable time in researching and do not come to the conclusion Drmies, or others parroting the orignal claim, has/have. Drmies original assertion was not based in actual fact, but in their opinion.
It seems to me that others, like WyattAllenSDA, assuming SDA stands for Seventh-day Adventist, had a point in their argumentation on the Google Hits, wherein they stated, “It also says that Google shouldn't be entirely dismissed ...”, and with that I would also agree, which is why it took me somewhat longer to contribute a response. Drmies cannot have his argument both ways and still have an original reason for deletion able to stand.
U/E BradBurns, has at least put forth real effort to try to correct any problems which might have originally contributed to the pages deletion as seen by the original person who submitted for deletion. It would have been better for Drmies to simply have brought the discussion to that talk page, and lay the complaint there and see if anyone took it seriously, or attempt to fix the article, before summarily relegating it to the articles for deletion. It is better to see if there may be a fix, correction or diligent effort in research, rather than to lose any precious knowledge which may be of value presently, or in future. Research takes time, and generally yields greater understanding.
I cannot see how U/E Drmies actually attempted this seeing as the assertions made lack any verifiable documentation, rather than self-made claims which are no argument at all.
Another argument for deletion, brought forward by Drmies, originally was stated as, “... Please see the article history for the full version of this article (including a dozen links to his own publications) ...”, but this is not actually any argument for deletion, seeing as the article is about a presently living person, [D.E.B.] namely a Biography of Living Persons - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source which states that:
“Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. ..”,
and thus sources like “The Richest Caveman”, clearly a Biography, is not only permissable, allowable and desired, but actually firsthand knowledge from the subject themselves, assuming Good Faith in their own biography to detail their own history. The other sources even second that [semi-Auto]Biography, such as the one from Pacific Press, which is not D.E.B.'s own publishing company which happens to be Mountain Ministry. Presently, there is no violation in/of any of those.
As far as the argument or statement that, “Being a minister is not a reason for notability in its own right...”, I do not actually see anywhere where that was made the argument to begin with, or for keeping the page originally or presently. The statement is non-sequitur, and moot, being as no one presently claimed that the person, D.E.B., being a minister was the reason for the page to exist to begin with or for keeping it.
Drmies had originally noted that there were primarily “two editors”. Perhaps that was the problem, and not that the article needed to be deleted, but simply showcased to a larger unbiased collective, before anyone simply sent to the articles for deletion pile. That this was not done, to me, shows bad form and immoderate haste.
That it was said by Drmies, “...I was very surprised that I wasn't able to find anything ...”, when others so easily have, even if not all are agreed to the inherent or possible value of those sources, again leads me to conclude that Drmies took less than the appropriate or considerate time to research and was too quick to recommend for deletion.
It is faulty arguments like, “I don't know what the value of Ranker is. ...” that lead me to conclude that there needs to be another primary reason given for this articles deletion, and then it to be discussed if any are actually brought forward. Why is the argument based upon what any one U/E doesn't know about any given source? Look, its there. It didn't take long either to find. What “ad's” are associated with any given source is irrelevant, as they are not the source itself. Some “ad's” are bundle generated, or prepackaged, and or are related to ones own search engine profiles or cookies [which would say more about what ad's they see, rather than others in what they see, while some may see ad's for food, sex, or games, others see ads for farm equipment, gardens and out-dooring, all depending upon the users own searching/habits/preferences of internet use].
I would have to agree with U/E Gabby Merger, when stating, “... Drmies, I seriously cannot believe that you put the "deletion" tag for this article. There's no good warrant for that really. ... ” and furthermore I agree with, “Doug Batchelor is definitely a well-known and stand-alone subject and personality, and warrants a separate Wikipedia article, because he is certainly known, sourced, and clearly notable.” as this has been shown, mostly by U/E BradBurns, and one or two others [even if seemingly biased as others claimed, which was/is unproven, merely asserted without evidence]. That the person is a “minister” is not detrimental, but simply one more fact to add to the articles data. That some do not agree with the “theology” of the “minister” is also not detrimental either, but also adds to the data.
Therefore, upon closer consideration and examination of the original arguments for deletion, I did not find one worthy according to WP standards, even with all the so-called “rules” being bandied and clouted about [even on what some perceived as new]. There was some harassment there it seemed, since their positive arguments were not addressed, merely the various U/E's length of time as U/E's or some apparent ignorance of the supposed WP “rules” [see my original paragraph], “You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. If you do what seems sensible, it will usually be right, and if it's not right, don't worry. Even the worst mistakes are easy to correct: … You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating. … Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit (see also Use common sense, below). … The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored (see also Wikipedia:The rules are principles).”; &c.
Therefore the statement, by Drmies, “If all these brandspankingnew accounts could read up on policies (and formatting, signing, etc), that would be great.” not only attempts to point out a U/E's time aboard, but even seems to break a rule, as they seemed to think the U/E's were “brandspankingnew” and thus did not have to “read the rules” before entering into the fray. However, even if they did not “read the rules”, the one rule “Ignore all rules” seems to apply anyway for all involved.
While U/E Kraxler cited against U/E BradBurns WP:BLUDGEON, though I think unfounded, [see below], I cannot help but notice, that U/E Kraxler did not cite the same for U/E Drmies, who seemed to reply at almost every opportunity when the arguments were not in their favor. In fact, as can be witnessed by all present, Drmies is listed as writing a minimum of 8 times [present count], most of which are responsive, in either simply agreeing with the [Deletes] and always arguing against [Keeps] at every opportunity. To me that is a clear case of WP:BLUDGEON on Drmies part, which reads, “Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own.” As For WP:BombBardment, I also see no case of this with the sources that U/E BradBurns, or others have listed. There may indeed be one or two which are similarly related, or even the same topic, but this is to be expected, especially for notable persons, and not out of character for internet sources. Even with 2-3 being similar, there are obviously many more which are coming from a wide range of persons, organizations, and locations, all well within the norm for Wikiepdia.
Now to consider U/E BradBurns, and see if their part is WP:BLUDGEON. From reading carefully U/E BradBurns comments/arguments, they are carefully considering the other persons responses and attempting [in Good Faith] to show that if there are any valid reasons to consider in altering the article, that there is another and far better way, besides deletion, namely updating the research with any necessary corrections to be in good standing as an Wiki article.
I do not see U/E BradBurns merely poo-pooing others positions, but actually addressing them with as much evidence as they have been able to collect in research, in trying to be constructive and helpful, of which others have not been as zealous. Perhaps some have been overzealous in citing sources [on this page, which is not the main page], but that is subjective, especially when taking into consideration that originally there were very few sources to consider, and now there are an abundance, even if all are not equally weighted. Yet, even what some take to be overabundance is subjective yet further still seeing as even those many sources, may only be a tip of the iceberg on the greater part of the net itself, especially in regards to a person which is world-traveled, and whose pedigree came from the well-to-do or wealthy and noted, such as George Batchelor [Aviation Tycoon, etc] and Ruth [Film Critic, etc]. Better to have more than not enough and lose, what potentially could be a good, great or even noteworthy article or person of interest.
Further positive arguments are based upon the admissions of the [Deletes]. For instance, U/E E.M. Gregory stated, “... He does get quoted a little in the press. ...”, and thus we have admission to a fact that U/E BradBurns and others have noticed and stated a little more accurately.
It is interesting that U/E Peterkingiron, stated, “... this does not read like an objective encyclopaedic article.” and that may well be the case, and yet U/E Peterkingiron I noticed did not immediately cite for [Delete], but rather [Comment] which was, to my mind, unbiased. For even if the statement is factually true, though I do not say one way or another, it would not give enough reasons for deletion, but rather for correction, or updating, etc. Again, it is better to attempt to fix, rather then simply relegate to certain oblivion or unnecessary redirect.
Upon the point of redirect, of which was earlier suggested by U/E Tokyogirl79, I would think is also unfounded, since Amazing Facts Ministries, Inc. was begun with out D.E.B. and can possibly exist without D.E.B., while the person themselves are notable in their own right apart from the said Inc. as shown by the several sources already listed in the numbered section. I would think for no other reason than that D.E.B. is specifically noted and notable as “The Richest Caveman” that he would be included and identified and would be another great American personality to have in the encyclopedia, as others in American history.
Others seem to be obfuscating the intent of the reason for deletion by incorrectly identifying U/E Gabby Merger as “COI”, such as when U/E Ymblanter stated, “You are clearly a COI editor, ...” without any documented evidence whatsoever and stating it as fact when no such fact was produced to substantiate the claim made, and then later adding insult to injury, with uncouth language, and refusing to identify the specific “COI” with evidence.
Then let's come to U/E Coolabahapple, which stated, “... a Washington Post article, a couple of obituaries ...”, which seems to downplay what is given in them. For instance, those Obit.'s are not meaningless when taken into consideration of who they are about, and what is stated about the persons in them. An Obit. might mean little to the general audience if say any ol' relative died, but if that relative was famous or of the wealthy class, or had been in the 'limelight' or contributed in some way greatly to society, it would definitely carry far more weight. Those Obit.'s are actually important in what they give.
As for “a dead link”, I am curious as to which one this is. Could you please specifically identify it for us all please? It would be better to fix and consider, than to merely disregard because it may [or may not] be broken.
The admission from U/E Coolabahapple is indeed noteworthy to the actual strength of argument for deletion here, namely it seems recurring throughout in simialr or like related language, on the deletion side that, “... (i admit i have only glanced at them and have not carefully read them all ...”
Let us truly ask, are we here to actually see if there should be deletion, or have we already made up our minds simply reading the responses here, rather than the sources provided, themselves. I personally have been reading the sources as provided, and then the comments and responding acordingly.
Therefore, I can agree with U/E Coolabahapple, when stated, “... If refs, please add them to the article, so the article can be improved; if evangelists please list them here so other editors may put them up for afd (as appropriate) to improve wikipedia.” and this is a far better approach than outright deletion [Yes, I “keep” saying that, its that old rule of “repetition”.]
Furthermore, another point by U/E Kraxler, as stated, “... The pastor is idolised and adored by his followers, but ignored by the mainstream media. ...” and yet this is shown, by the links provided, to be incorrect or at minimum a gross overstatement. The person D.E.B. is not “ignored by the mainstream media” and several links testify to that, which indicate several interviews by reputable news agencies [ex. Fox News, I assume people know of this in the USA], and in several documentaries, like National Geographic, and even one in Australia, etc. That any given person is not in the news [etc] daily, is not to be ignored, nor relegated to insignificance, but to be taken seriously when they are seen therein, especially when it is not a one time fluke, but in serious efforts at study [like a documentary].
Other users, did have some valuable input, such as U/E Moreaboutjesus stating, “Apparently the consensus is that he's popular and well known, just because you've never heard of him doesn't mean he's not.” and that is what Wikipedia is about, a consensus, and not biases. Since the internet, printed page, radio, etc, come to a general consensus that D.E.B. is indeed “popular” or “celebrity” why any further discussion in a room of perhaps 10 persons, when there is obviously a far greater consensus already reached from a vast range of persons, in age groups, sex, nationality, affinity, etc? It seems even those who despise Seventh-day Adventists, know who this man is, and speak of him [or Amazing Facts, Inc. or SDA], even if in a negative light/context.
U/E Mighty Flower stated, “... Batchelor is as public as a religious figure gets ...”, and though I may not come to the exact same conclusion, I do come near it, as I do recognize through the links, that D.E.B. is indeed a very public person as opposed to the private ministers whom I have never heard of that live down the street and preach only in their various backyard neighbourhoods and would not recommend for a Wikipedia article.
U/E Joninlincoln stated, “... He is easily one of the most recognized members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. ...” and to this I would have to agree without question. Any research about the present Seventh-day Adventist movement, and one will undoubtedly come across this man's name and work. If any doubt this, research it yourself as I have. It is not as if I would recommend any SDA Minister at any and all times for a Wikipedia article. For instance, once may search for some particular names in the SDA movement, like Jeremiah Davis, Dwayne Lemon and/or Randy Skeete, which are all part of what SDA call “present-truth” movement, and yet as far as I know there is not a Wiki page for them yet.
While other arguments for “keep” may not be as strong, such as comparisons to other evangelists or other article pages, they are not of themselves without merit either, and should not be summarily dismissed without true consideration of the ones proffered as contrasting.
Therefore, in conclusion, the article does need clean up, alteration and updating, especially with all of the new links provided [I do want to thank U/E BradBurns and others who have helpfully contributed a great deal of information on this person D.E.B.], but I cannot see how it ever warranted deletion, even if all of the presently surfaced information was not known. That information may not be readily available, or that same information may not be found by those looking so speedily, is no reason for deletion, but rather due time is needed for collaboration and effort to study, research and dig. Imagine if persons digging in supposed archeological sites were so quick to simply give up at the first scratch of the earth when they turned over the first rock and found nothing, or turned back for lack of complete and detailed routes to the places sought for. Or if they found a persons name and immediately discarded them as unimportant, for they assumed little record existed of their notoriety, when if they would simply look and dig further, they might find abundance of someone vastly important to history. The riches of information which may be found takes actual effort, time and investment.
I would like to thank all for taking the time to read, and no offense personally to any [I only want to consider the evidence/arguments]. Therefore, I say [Keep], but with necessary and future editing needed.
Signed,
U/E of Wiki, older than some, newer than others.
I simply want the evidence/argument considered thoroughly on all sides. I am not a U/E already posted here, nor will be posting again, though I will continue to read. What is said is said, and what ultimately happens to the article, whether to be deleted, or kept and fixed/updated, will be accepted, no if's, and's or but's from me.
PS. I left the response as is without attempting to correct/double check for any and all typographical, spelling, formatting etc issues. It simply wasn't the present concern, especially for a page which is no page to begin with.
This IP, is now being abandoned, and it has no parachute.
66.60.178.226 (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC) — 66.60.178.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:TLDR. Kraxler (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply/Comment to 66.60.178.226(?) - "Then let's come to U/E Coolabahapple, which stated, “... a Washington Post article, a couple of obituaries ...”, which seems to downplay what is given in them." - This is what is stated in the WP article -"Despite the advances by some women, critics say the Bible remains clear on women in leadership, and the church should, too.
“I feel like the Bible hasn’t changed while our culture has, and so if I’m going to be a Bible Christian, then the traditional understanding that there’s a distinction between men and women is still unchanged,” said Pastor Doug Batchelor, who leads a church in Sacramento, Calif., and is a member of the worldwide church’s Theology of Ordination Study Committee.
Duke Divinity School scholar Mark Chaves sees a link between women’s ordination and broader embracing of modernity."
This is a trivial mention of Doug Batchelor
"For instance, those Obit.'s are not meaningless when taken into consideration of who they are about, and what is stated about the persons in them. An Obit. might mean little to the general audience if say any ol' relative died, but if that relative was famous or of the wealthy class, or had been in the 'limelight' or contributed in some way greatly to society, it would definitely carry far more weight. Those Obit.'s are actually important in what they give." - these obits are trivial as they do not discuss Doug Batchelor in any detail
"As for “a dead link”, I am curious as to which one this is. Could you please specifically identify it for us all please? It would be better to fix and consider, than to merely disregard because it may [or may not] be broken." - the dead link is Amazing Facts Inc (yes the 'keepers' should ensure all reference links actually work)
'The admission from U/E Coolabahapple is indeed noteworthy to the actual strength of argument for deletion here, namely it seems recurring throughout in simialr or like related language, on the deletion side that, “... (i admit i have only glanced at them and have not carefully read them all ...”" - sorry but i do not have the 4 or 5 hours plus spare time to go through the 120 citations listed in this afd, as i stated before, on the surface they don't look as if they contribute to notability, if any of them do i would think that editors who want this article kept would add them. ps. my invite to list the 30 or so non-notable evangilists are still open, if not here then they can be listed on my talk page and i will have a look at them. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:PLENTY Wikipedia should be about everything and not an exclusive club for young white male atheist. The article contains WP:PLENTY of information on the subject and if it is deleted, the info will end up back with in the Seventh-Day Adventist article. WP:BHTT I'm also seeing oodles of WP:SUPPORT and WP:INVOLVE for this article. And, finally I believe Bradburns above makes good use of the argument WP:RS through the mentioning of other authors such as Herbert E. Douglass. MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 19:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Holy TL;DR linkspambomb, Batman!!! I hit The Google and didn't see anything that counts as a source towards GNG fulfillment among the first 200 or so hits on the exact name. There is definitely a substantial web footprint for this individual and I'm not 100% sold that there aren't 3 or 4 solid interviews or biographies out there, but the defenders of this article have made a mess of it by including a huge wave of garbage links. Would y'all care to try again with three or four good ones? Carrite (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://smalltownnews.com/article.php?aid=84131&pub=The%20Foothills%20Sun-Gazette
  2. ^ http://spectrummagazine.org/article/jared-wright/2014/11/16/nicholas-miller-writes-open-letter-doug-batchelor-ordination
  3. ^ http://www-atsim-org.adventistconnect.org/uploaded_assets/468920-Good_News_Vol_34_No_4_Spring_2014_web.pdf?thumbnail=original&1431991820
  4. ^ http://record.net.au/uploaded_assets/226071-rec46_09_11_28.pdf?thumbnail=original&1431991128
  5. ^ http://www.bibleprobe.com/Adventist-Lamplighter.pdf
  6. ^ http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/31/article_16210.php
  7. ^ http://www.christianpost.com/news/to-drink-or-not-to-drink-pastor-says-acceptance-of-alcohol-in-church-is-like-committing-suicide-although-jesus-made-wine-132856/
  8. ^ http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2013-12/some-seventh-day-adventists-forge-ahead-women-clergy
  9. ^ http://national.deseretnews.com/article/3001/Pope-says-youll-see-your-pet-in-heaven-sparking-worldwide-expression-of-Aww.html
  10. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_m8aPH9vDA
  11. ^ http://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2014-12-18/remembrance-douglass-87-was-leading-adventist-theologian-author/
  12. ^ http://atoday.org/amazing-facts-or-amazing-paranoia.html
  13. ^ http://atoday.org/amazing-facts-or-amazing-paranoia.html
  14. ^ https://atoday.org/who-is-authorized-to-lead-a-communion-service-becomes-church-manual-debate.html
  15. ^ http://atoday.org/vote-on-ordination-majority-says-no-to-women-as-adventist-ministers.html
  16. ^ http://spectrummagazine.org/article/alexander-carpenter/2010/04/12/southeastern-california-conference-executive-committee-respon
  17. ^ http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2015/07/24/why-adventisms-next-big-disagreement-may-be-over-biblical-literalism
  18. ^ http://spectrummagazine.org/node/2253
  19. ^ http://news.adventist.org/all-commentaries/commentary/go/0/research-shows-that-relationships-are-the-best-form-of-evangelism/
  20. ^ http://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/1999-03-01/satellite-outreach-continues-with-net-new-york-99/
  21. ^ http://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2004-02-16/north-america-adventist-broadcasters-reach-out-to-religious-stations/
  22. ^ http://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2006-02-21/also-in-the-news-26/
  23. ^ http://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2000-03-06/global-mission-launches-new-concept-in-evangelism/
  24. ^ http://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2005-03-05/adventist-world-headquarters-hosts-international-satellite-net-2005-broadcasts/
  25. ^ http://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/1999-10-25/church-satellite-outreach-live-from-new-york/
  26. ^ http://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2004-05-03/news-in-brief-6/
  27. ^ http://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2007-04-23/also-in-the-news-6/
  28. ^ http://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2010-10-01/adventist-supporting-ministry-to-host-teen-question-series/
  29. ^ http://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2002-12-02/cameroon-church-hosts-first-satellite-series/
  30. ^ http://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2011-08-08/annual-asi-convention-sees-2-million-donated-for-mission/
  31. ^ http://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2006-07-17/also-in-the-news-50/
  32. ^ http://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2001-11-26/west-african-leaders-focus-on-mission-initiatives/
  33. ^ http://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2005-03-07/ukraine-finley-launches-evangelism-meetings-in-kiev-seminars-beamed-across-continent-overseas/
  34. ^ http://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2005-02-24/world-church-finley-to-hold-ukraine-satellite-event-will-chair-internet-evangelism-panel/
  35. ^ http://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/1999-12-27/adventist-news-networks-year-in-review/
  36. ^ http://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2005-07-05/west-central-africa-colorful-report-celebrates-growth-in-region/
  37. ^ http://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2005-12-21/year-in-review-adventists-celebrate-growth-share-world-concerns-in-2005/
  38. ^ http://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2005-03-21/ukraine-thousands-continue-to-attend-kiev-evangelism-meetings-daily/
  39. ^ http://advindicate.com/articles/2014/8/17/asi-highlights
  40. ^ http://advindicate.com/articles/2014/7/21/tony-palmer-killed-in-motorcycle-accident
  41. ^ http://advindicate.com/articles/2014/2/28/popes-video-fulfills-prophecy
  42. ^ http://advindicate.com/articles/2014/8/12/3abns-ordination-survey-bubble-or-bombshell
  43. ^ http://advindicate.com/articles/2620
  44. ^ http://advindicate.com/articles/2015/7/7/perceived-pro-wo-wording-recommended-for-church-manual-debate-ensues
  45. ^ http://advindicate.com/articles/2014/6/6/surprise-third-way-option-emerges-at-final-tosc-meeting
  46. ^ http://advindicate.com/articles/2015/7/9/motion-failed-a-report-on-july-8-wo-proceedings
  47. ^ http://advindicate.com/articles/2015/6/14/why-womens-ordination-matters
  48. ^ http://advindicate.com/articles/1078
  49. ^ http://advindicate.com/articles/2014/6/25/they-are-for-war-ordination-and-unnecessary-conflict
  50. ^ http://advindicate.com/articles/1886
  51. ^ http://advindicate.com/articles/2584
  52. ^ http://advindicate.com/articles/2424
  53. ^ http://advindicate.com/articles/1804
  54. ^ http://www.adventistreview.org/gcs2015-fifth-business-meeting
  55. ^ http://www.adventistreview.org/%E2%80%8Bsixth-business-meeting
  56. ^ http://www.adventistreview.org/%E2%80%8Btwelfth-business-meeting
  57. ^ http://www.adventistreview.org/ten-days/2015-01-08-day-two-of-prayer-jan.-8
  58. ^ http://archives.adventistreview.org/article/402/archives/issue-2006-1507/adventist-news
  59. ^ http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/herbert-e.-douglass,-leading-theologian-and-author,-dead-at-87
  60. ^ http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/gc-president-shares-jesus-with-manila%E2%80%99s-rich-and-powerful
  61. ^ http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/a-california-hispanic-ministry-reaches-behind-bar
  62. ^ http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/decisions,-commitment,-and-a-broader-vision
  63. ^ http://atoday.org/amazing-facts-or-amazing-paranoia.html
  64. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=doug+batchelor&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Doug+Batchelor%22
  65. ^ http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/%22Doug%20Batchelor%22?Ns=P_Sales_Rank&Ntk=P_key_Contributor_List&Ntx=mode%20matchall
  66. ^ http://nrb.org/news_room/press_center/amazing-facts-ministries-receives-2015-nrb-award-for-best-nation/
  67. ^ https://www.facebook.com/dougbatchelor/photos/a.433566580060656.1073741830.431672620250052/808451429238834/
  68. ^ http://nrb.org/news_room/press_center/media-awards/amazing-facts-bible-prophecy-amazing-facts-ministries-wins-2014/
  69. ^ http://www.amazingfacts.org/news-and-features/from-pastor-doug/letter/id/11131/t/amazing-facts-on-the-discovery-channel
  70. ^ http://www.tbn.org/watch-us/our-programs/amazing-facts
  71. ^ http://www.itbn.org/index/program/lib/programs/sublib/Amazing+Facts
  72. ^ http://itbn.org/index/detail/ec/N2NjVyczptpU6JR2uVowpfmBE_vADVir
  73. ^ http://www.tbnnetworks.com/index.php?reDirect=http://www.tbnnetworks.com/church/net_pressarticle.php?ID=130
  74. ^ https://www.directv.com/networks/lifetime
  75. ^ http://www.tvweeklynow.com/on-television-today-tonight/Updated-Program-Listings/lifetime-updated-program-schedule-for-jul-26-aug-1.htm
  76. ^ http://www.tvweeklynow.com/on-television-today-tonight/Updated-Program-Listings/lifetime-updated-program-schedule-for-aug-2-8.htm
  77. ^ http://lightsource.com/
  78. ^ http://www.daystar.com/shows/amazing-facts-doug-batchelor/
  79. ^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3761961/
  80. ^ http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Doug_Batchelor
  81. ^ http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Hank_Hanegraaff
  82. ^ http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Richard_Roberts_(evangelist)
  83. ^ http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Valerie_Jarrett
  84. ^ http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Scott_Adams
  85. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_evangelists
  86. ^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0060754/
  87. ^ http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2002-07-31/news/0207300478_1_mr-batchelor-cystic-fibrosis-center-children-s-health
  88. ^ http://natgeotv.com/za/bible_uncovered/videos/secret-code-of-revelations
  89. ^ http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/videos/secrets-of-revelation1/
  90. ^ http://www.equip.org/broadcast/qa-ravi-zacharias-the-nephilim-and-demon-possession/
  91. ^ http://www.seekingmedia.com.au/news.php?newsid=3054
  92. ^ http://www.christianfilmdatabase.com/review/cosmic-conflict-ii-the-battle-for-truth/
  93. ^ https://www.stl-distribution.com/details/?id=9781580195812
  94. ^ http://www.guidinglight.com/encyclopedia/D/Doug_Batchelor.htm
  95. ^ http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/doug_batchelor
  96. ^ http://www.fampeople.com/cat-doug-batchelor
  97. ^ http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1926667.htm
  98. ^ http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/review/film/s1774261.htm
  99. ^ http://nrb.org/membership/presidents_council/
  100. ^ http://nrb.org/news_room/articles/nrb-family-lifts-pastor-rick-warren-in-prayer/
  101. ^ http://www.shalomadventure.com/stories/prose/1981-doug-bachelor
  102. ^ http://www.savannahpictures.com/creation-speaks/
  103. ^ http://www.ryanjbell.net/shock_and_awe/
  104. ^ http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/doug-batchelor/355814
  105. ^ http://www.wbaj.net/testimonials.shtml
  106. ^ http://www.formypeople.org/En/64_final_events_and_the_first_supper.shtml
  107. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/some-seventh-day-adventists-forge-ahead-on-women-clergy/2013/12/04/c7e442b0-5d28-11e3-8d24-31c016b976b2_story.html
  108. ^ http://national.deseretnews.com/article/3001/pope-says-youll-see-your-pet-in-heaven-sparking-worldwide-expression-of-aww.html
  109. ^ http://www.thewashingtondailynews.com/2014/06/23/five-time-winner-pecheles-takes-pride-in-customer-service/
  110. ^ http://www.mygoodnewstv.com/feature-millennium
  111. ^ http://www.sealingtime.com/resources/featured-speakers/doug-batchelor/
  112. ^ http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/amazing-facts-with-doug-batchelor/422221/
  113. ^ http://www.lifetalk.net/article/13/program-descriptions
  114. ^ http://wordoftruthradio.com/audio/view.php?speaker=2
  115. ^ http://www.itbn.org/index/person/lib/people/sublib/Doug+Batchelor/page/3
  116. ^ http://www.soundchristian.com/prophecy/who/
  117. ^ "6279. Ralph Waldo Emerson. 1803-1882. John Bartlett, comp. 1919. Familiar Quotations, 10th ed". Bartleby.com. Retrieved 2014-05-25.
  118. ^ Reid, Graham (2001-11-18). "Stephen King: On Writing". New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 2008-06-04.
  119. ^ a b Cohen, Noam (2007-08-05). "Defending Wikipedia's Impolite Side". the New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-04.
  120. ^ a b "Wikipedia:Ignore all rules". Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. 2012-04-13. Retrieved 2012-04-17.
  121. ^ a b Heather Havenstein (2007-04-02). "Wikipedia founder rejects his 'ignore all rules' mantra in new online project: Larry Sanger launches Citizendium". ComputerWorld. Retrieved 2008-06-04.
  122. ^ Schiff, Stacy (2006-07-31). "Know It All: Can Wikipedia conquer experience?". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2008-06-05.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doug_Batchelor&oldid=1077970396"