Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lazarus Muoka

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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lazarus Muoka

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

Not notability beyond The Lord's Chosen Charismatic Revival Movement which already has an article. Bazj (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. @Bazj: what do you mean by Not notability beyond The Lord's Chosen Charismatic Revival Movement? When I easily found [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11],[12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] to mention few. I recommend a speedy keep of this debate since the subject notability has been established. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean exactly that. The article states he's pastor of a church. It makes no further claims than that. The church has an article. This article is a case of WP:BLP1E at best. If there's more to be said about HIM, add it to the article. If not then it needs to be deleted, or at least redirected to the church's article. Bazj (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth does WP:BLP1E applies here? He is a founder and general overseer of a notable church in Nigeria and the article make it clear. In addition to that, I had provided evidence of his notability and the sources provided above has nothing to do with the said revival. The article is a stub and will surely be expanded and being a stub itself is not a valid reason for deletion. To be honest and factual, you really need to familiarize yourself with WP:BLP1E. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest and factual, you really need to add the material to the article, not the AfD. You removed the speedy, You asked for the AfD. Don't complain about getting what you asked for. Bazj (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of sources in the article is not really the problem. The function of sources is to establish a subject notability as well as to validate a claim in an article. The article is a stub in its current state and the source in the article links to The Sun Newspaper which does not only establish the subject notability but validated the fact that the subject of the article is a founder and general overseer of a notable church in Nigeria. I'm ready to include the sources per WP:SEP, if the page creator expand the page. I'm sure you will not implies that I should begin to expand the page. Contrary to your claim I never asked for WP:AfD, I only implies that I have no prejudice against its deletion through WP:AfD if its notability is in doubt because A7 does not applies to articles with assertion of notability but you decided to bring it here on a rationale that its a WP:BLP1E without even considering WP:BEFORE. This nomination is ridiculous, you really need to close it to avoid public spanking. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikicology, if have some knowledge of Muoka, please add it to article with sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you will not implies (sic) that I should begin to expand the page - why not? You've looked up the sources. You seem to care about this article. Who else?
you really need to close it - why? It's a discussion. You have one opinion, I have another. I'm sure other editors also have opinions which deserve to be heard.
...to avoid public spanking - Please keep the discussion civil and don't make threats. Bazj (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bazj, baby, settle down, this is an AFD, not a war.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even the most cursory news google search turns up a plethora of sources, both enthusiastically pro- and stridently anti- Muoka. Clearly a controversial, influential figure in Nigeria. Lousy article, but that's a reason to improve it or tag it, not to delete it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Bazj: the article has been improved, kindly remove the AfD tag thanks. Happy Editing! OluwaCurtis The King : talk to me 22:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The source requirements of WP:GNG have been meet. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- His movement (accordingly to its article) had 300,000 branches worldwide; if it were 300,000 members, it would still be significant. With membership on that scale, we should certainly have an article on the founder. My concern is that the articler has little more content than that on the movement. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2015 (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.