Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sy Rogers

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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sy Rogers[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BLP of a person whose claims of notability are not properly referenced. Four of the six footnotes here are organizational blogs, while a fifth is a user-generated wiki -- and the only one that's actually a real notability-supporting media outlet is a glancing namecheck of Sy Rogers' existence in an article that's primarily about other people. While a few other sources were removed last year as reference-bombing overkill, none of them actually bolstered the notability case either, as all of them suffered exactly the same problems as the sources that are still present. This states nothing about the subject that is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee someone a Wikipedia article just because they exist, but the content is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get a person over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the references need improvement or not, the traffic is a strong indicator of the notability of this subject. The article currently averages close to 100 daily views, more than enough to justify the article. - JGabbard (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE--What is he notable for? I don't get why a wiki page was created for this guy, a few sources and him being on Youtube does not make him notable. He may be notable where he lives but how many people actually know him. @JGabbard: those 100 daily views may have come from people who have accidentally just clicked on him or pressed the random button on the side bar. I do it all the time. There is actually no proof that this person is actually notable apart from a couple of references. If he was so notable then why is his page a stub? Plum3600 (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randomized views are theoretically spread out across the nearly 6 million articles, so that has no bearing. And no one's notability is dependent on your having heard of them. Most people have never heard of most people. YouTube personalities are a huge thing nowadays, but unnecessary when notoriety was gained decades earlier. And stubs are stubs so they can be developed, not deleted. - JGabbard (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is true that articles don't have to already be perfect before they're allowed to exist, they still have to at least contain a credible and properly sourced indication of notability in the first place before they're allowed to exist. If "it might be improvable someday" were all it took to stave off deletion in and of itself, we'd have to always keep an article about every single person who exists at all including you and me and the old lady across the hall. So we don't keep poorly sourced articles just because somebody theorizes that maybe they might become improvable in the future — the key to getting an article into the keep zone in a deletion discussion is to show hard evidence that the quality of sourcing needed to get them over the bar does exist, not just to speculate that it might improve in the future. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE~~@Bearcat:Totally agree with you. I'm not very good at trying to get my point across, but everything you said is what I was trying to say.Plum3600 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck what appears to be a duplicate !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- unless the article can be expanded to show that he did something notable, he seems a run-of-the mill NN pastor. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A considerable amount of additional content has been added. Reevaluation is necessary. - JGabbard (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just added a published book as a reference.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a passing mention in one sentence of a book does not amount to WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite attempts to expand this, we are still a long way off passing WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't appear to meet requirements for WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Efforts to improve have generally relied on single-sentence, trivial coverage in news outlets that mention Rogers in the context of Exodus. Excluding these, what few other sources remain are not reliable sources – they include user-generated wikis, a blog, and an opinion column in Charisma. I found very little in my searches which provides much additional coverage beyond what's already in the article. —0xf₈e₈ (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I do not believe this article provides anything worthwhile to anyone interested in the subject. Only credible sources appear to have just singular passing mentions. Unoc (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY Keep Nom and delete votes probably happened because not only is the whole ex-gay thing sort of, er... strange, but because he was a thing back in the 80s, so the INDEPTH coverage he got doesn't come up in searches - I ran his name through an archive search, but some of the articles I found I have been able to find open source, like this long 1987 profile in the Orlando Sentinel: If I Can Change, You Can, Former Transsexual Tells Gays, and this Newsweek: U.S.'s Richest Boarding School Admits It Showed Anti-Gay Videos To Students. Also Spin (magazine): [1]. There is news coverage I have not yet added and also several Books of Christian piety with substantive passages about him or his impact on individual lives, I have not added any because I have not sifted through them. Some may be "real" (i.e. not self-published) and contain useful material. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss E.M.Gregory's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per norm. Few passing mentions of which nothing significant, Fails WP:GNG. Lapablo (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG not only because of multiple secondary sources, but also a documentary about his life. Rogers is a pioneer figure who gained notoriety in the realm at least five to 10 years before associated figures arose such as John Paulk, Anne Paulk, Andrew Comiskey, John Smid, Alan Chambers, Wayne Besen and Joe Dallas, most of whose articles have far less support than this one now has. Relatively speaking, it would make no sense to keep theirs but not his, because Rogers' notability surpasses theirs and they would all likely say the same. All of them early on would have drawn some inspiration from Rogers. - JGabbard (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN. I have just removed the low quality sources and material. And added material. Comments made before this 2nd HEYMANN upgrade are obsolete .E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that significant, well-sourced information was deleted from the article before it was brought to AfD. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has undergone some significant changes that may warrant reevaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given new sources found by User:E.M.Gregory. SJK (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2019 (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.