Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Nathan

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Consensus is that Rich Nathan has received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Rich Nathan to develop an attributable article on the topic. -- Jreferee t/c 23:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Nathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Subject of article does not pass the notability test. There is only one external source, and it was written by the subject himself. The article about the church he heads was merged into this article, but that part mostly appears as a combination of a sermon and and advertisement for the church. Analogue Kid 15:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Nathan is a notable figure within Christianity, a key leader of the Vineyard Movement after the death of John Wimber, Nathan's church draws about 6,000 people every week. Google hits for his name were 12,400. He is one of the primary voices advocating the Third Wave of the Holy Spirit. Agreed that the article needs some more sources and third party neutrality, but his notability shouldn't be in dispute.Brian0324 17:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added some external links that are of published secondary sources (1) Columbus Dispatch interview, (2) Columbus, Ohio Community Relations article, (3) Christianity Today article interviewing Nathan. -- Brian0324 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC) (4) here's an article from a Jewish website that claims that Nathan's church is one of the biggest in the state of Ohio -- Brian0324 19:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC). (5) Jackson, Bill (1999). Quest for the Radical Middle: A History of the Vineyard. Vineyard International Publishing. ISBN 0620243198. -- Added this reference to Nathan's article Brian0324 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC). (6) Gaffin, Richard B. (1996). Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?: Four Views. Zondervan. ISBN 0310201551. -- Added this reference to Nathan's impact on the Third Wave Movement Brian0324 20:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC). (7) Grudem, Wayne (1994). Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Zondervan. ISBN 0310286700. Nathan's response to John F. MacArthur is cited on page 1040. -- Brian0324 20:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the alleged interview with the Columbus paper (item (1) above) likely would get him enough notability, but we need a link to the article, and it referenced in the text. Likely, he is notable but the outside sources need to be found and used in the article. -- Rocksanddirt 22:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, here it is.Columbus Dispatch interview. -- Brian0324 13:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC) :Now a quote appears from this article in the text. -- Brian0324 13:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was recently interviewed by the Dispatch, but I seriously doubt that makes me notable.--Analogue Kid 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above Elmao 18:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by nominator -Google is not a test of notability. Unfortunately it is not practical to determine whether the hits you receive are for the Rich Nathan who is the subject of the article or Rich Nathan who is someone else. If after reviewing the notability guidelines given below, you still feel that the article should be kept, please provide additional 3rd party sources as soon as possible so we can determine notability. As it stands, it fails the test for the following reasons: (1) The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. None given presently (2) If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. (3) The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. Not that I can find (4) The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. Nothing noted. (5) The person has demonstrable wide name recognition I have lived in Columbus my whole life and never heard of the guy until I ran across this page (6) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. See note below (7) Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products None (8) Note from above: Generally, person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer. Nathan does not satisfy this as well (9) It is difficult to separate what is notable to one personally and what is notable to the world at large. If he really is as important as both those who have voted to keep and the article claim, it should be no trouble whatsoever to find external independent sources that can establish notability.--Analogue Kid 19:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment see additions to my comment, above. Thanks. -- Brian0324 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry for interrupting, but "I have lived in Columbus my whole life and never heard of the guy until I ran across this page" is the very model of an irrelevant argument. I wouldn't recognize the names of any churchmen in NYC probably, but that doesn't mean they're not notable, just that I'm not interested. DGG (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a borderline A7 qualifier. He runs a large church, which confers more innate notability than city councilman how exactly? 1 trivial gnews hit, he was quoted along with multiple other people. Ghit total isn't that impressive, especially once you factor out websites his church owns. Hits are mostly things showing up for sale at various Christian bookstores, or other people named Rich Nathan. If Ghits amounted to notability, we wouldn't be deleting many pornstars, and most of those deletions had wider name recognition than this articles subject. Unless someone finds enough WP:RS to establish significant coverage, this has no valid reason to remain that I can see. Horrorshowj 19:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nathan's photo and quotes appeared in the article by Michael Gerson, "A New Social Gospel," Newsweek, November 13, 2006. -- Brian0324 20:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace hosted a Presidential Forum, and here is Nathan on CNN video in July 2007 -- Brian0324 21:44, 19 September 2007 (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.