User talk:Daredevil1234

Welcome!

Hello, Daredevil1234, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Perry Noble, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Timneu22 · talk 17:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Perry Noble

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Timneu22 · talk 17:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article had no references and two sections were devoted to criticism of the man. That's an attack. — Timneu22 · talk 17:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is yet to be further explanation on the part of this user how this constitues an attack. Daredevil1234 (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Welcome

First off I want to acknowledge the politeness of the users Timneu22 and Pianotech. Thank you for welcoming me to wikipedia. In addressing any unfair analysis of the automatic deletion of my article please do not take anything personal, as I do not and will not engage in personal attacks. I feel it's fair to note that on both of the user pages for the afore-mentioned users they are listed as Christians. My article was about Mr. Perry Noble, a pastor of a large Modern American Evangelical Christian Church. Exceptions to this article were taken I believe to be unfair. I am not suggesting bias, but I am refusing to ignore the potenial of it. Daredevil1234 (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes on Attack in general

The user Timneu22 defined including two sections of criticism as an attack. Let's examine some things that can be defined as attacks. Slander and Libel (slander is spoken, libel is written)involve the perpetuating of falsehood about someone. The logical fallacy known as ad hominem is an attack on a person when you are supposed to be addressing their positions. I feel my first wikipedia article was unfairly brandished an attack, so now I feel it is necessary to pre-empt that in the future Daredevil1234 (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Timneu22

Criticsim of the man implies ad hominem attacks. You are incorrect. This is not a polemic against him as a person. This is reporting on the existence of a public figure, who happens to be known from his page, and the web based acknowledgements of others. Your analysis of the subject matter of the article is incorrect. Daredevil1234 (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Daredevil1234 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Daredevil1234 (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

″ You're kidding me. You're going to tell me how CSD works? How did that article not duplicate an existing topic? And worse, you just leave a foreign-language nonsense redirect out there? What the heck? Do you have any idea what you're doing? ″ The above appears on Timneu22's talk page. He suggests an article I wrote was unfairly attacking someone, and look at that respone he gives to someone discussing their page deletion. This should be addressed. Daredevil1234 (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Daredevil1234. You have new messages at Pianotech's talk page.
Message added 17:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Responded to your Perry Noble question Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 17:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

additional reply on my talk page Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 18:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism per se is not an attack

Attn: timneu22 : You arbitrarily decided this was an attack. Upon examination of the content, where is the attack? Also I am citing what others are saying of him, and I mention his preaching style as is. Daredevil1234 (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Daredevil1234 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ditto ;) Daredevil1234 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Perry Noble article

(start of article)

″ Perry Noble is senior pastor (according to http://www.perrynoble.com/about/) of New Spring Church in Anderson, South Carolina. The church has also has locations in the cities of Columbia, Florence, and Greenville. Newspring’s websites http://old.newspring.cc and www.newspring.cc do not have biographical information available about Mr.Noble. It does appear Mr.Noble has a child http://www.perrynoble.com/category/baby-noble/ . Mr.Noble’s website www.perrynoble.com also lacks biographical information about him. There are videos on YouTube available about him. A sermon by Steven L. Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe Arizona critiquing his church is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S99oKuZrxcI . During the sermon Mr.Anderson notes Newspring’s use of a rock band. A sermon of Mr. Noble preaching being uploaded by his church is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXYhdRS0v9M&NR=1 Mr. Noble is largely known from blogs and videos criticizing his church and his preaching. Perry Noble receives a lot of criticism for his use of indecent language and euphemisms. Perry Noble’s preaching seems to be “in-your-face” and the subject matter often revolves around how his church is organized. His use of Guitar Hero, and Rock-n-Roll music has also been criticized. Out of many evangelical Christians critiquing him, it appears he is dismissed as seeker-friendly, and liberal. See http://apprising.org/2010/03/03/perry-noble-exposes-practical-atheists-among-christians/ There was a scandal that involved members of his church stalking and harassing Dr. James Duncan for criticizing his theology and practices. Mr. Noble was never implicated in being directly involved but on the blogs addressing this scandal, his critics question how he could not have known. The story does not appear to have been noted by the mainstream media. Dr.Duncan recounts the story at his blog http://www.pajamapages.com/holy-rage-at-the-spring-2/ ″

(end of article)

This was an article I attempted to create that was a candidate for a speed deletion. They don't waste no time, do they? Well one user Timneu22 said I devoted two sections to criticism and that is an attack. Do you see attack here? The fact I note criticism of him by others, and point to it is not attack. I also point to one of the subjects sermons and thus present him and his point of view. Also I don't think me describing his preaching style as "in-your-face" is a criticism. That is a known style of preaching and motivational speaking. This article is being treated as a polemic and it is not. This article is reporting on the existence of someone

Now Pianotech took issue with me citing unverifiable sources. He made it sound like I was citing YouTube as a source. I was pointing to a video that happen to be stored at YouTube. He used what I think is some faulty logic when he said it's like me citing a website you wrote about yourself. That did not occur here. I cite the subjects own website, and his churches website as prove of his actual existence and my contention that he is a public figure. Daredevil1234 (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

17:44, 25 July 2010 Vianello (talk | contribs) deleted "Perry Noble" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)) So those are the reasons for the deletion. I certainly did explain the subject's significance, and he is significant. I get into this below.

Perry Noble on google.com

As of this writing, "perry noble" (include quotes) returns 86,900. Do every last one of them refer to him? I doubt it, but alot of them do. It would be hard to argue that this man is insignificant The image results on google return 8,700 and most of the pictures on the first 20 pages are of him. The video results return 366 and you will see on the first two pages they are mostly him. The blogs search returns 19,300. Groups gets you 329. Now news only gets you five, 4 by him in Christian Post and 1 by a local paper on his car fire. Books will get you info on a past missionary Frederic Perry Noble, but it does point one book our Perry Noble is mentioned in. He appears on page 41 of The Blogging Church Sharing the Story of Your Church Through Blogs. I found him in another book; I'm going to devote another section to that. So with all this being said, my point is that it is going to be hard to argue the subject is insignificant.

Now let's look at Bing.com using the same criteria
Bing gives 47,600,00 results. 1,030,000 video results.

Perry Noble in books

Pop Goes the Church: Should the Church Engage Pop Culture? - Page 239
Faith-based marketing: the guide to reaching 140 million Christian ... - Page 183
Beyond megachurch myths: what we can learn from America's largest ... - Page 228
The Culturally Savvy Christian: A Manifesto for Deepening Faith ... - Page 222
Leadership Gold: Lessons I've Learned from a Lifetime of Leading - Page 38
Killing Cockroaches: And Other Scattered Musings on Leadership - Page 233
The Blogging Church Sharing the Story of Your Church Through Blogs - Page 41

In response to your inquiry

As you put it to me, "I point to his position as senior pastor of a church and that church having other locations." Being a senior pastor of a church is not a claim to notability. One's church having more than one location is also not a claim to notability. And being debated or criticized, also, does not make someone notable, UNLESS that criticism enters the mainstream media. Please see WP:Notability, particular the subpage WP:BIO, for an outline of the notability criteria for articles about people. The primary criterion, as with most subjects, is (paraphrasing to my best ablity) "Verifiable evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources." Newspapers and similar publications being a very good example, major magazines, academic journals as well, that sort of thing. I'm not saying, "This person is not notable." Rather, I am saying, "This article, as it was written, did not indicate how/if this person met the notability criteria for biographies." - Vianello (Talk) 01:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well I appreciate your response. I believe we're dealing with technicalities on this issue. But I'm going to re-edit the article and deal with its technical deficiencies. Now if I want to resubmit this article, since you are the admin who deleted it, are you the person I would take that up with? Also please check out the above sections where I address his notability. The question of someone being notable cannot be purely relative. One thing is certain,the subject of the article is a public figure. The man's name in qoutes comes up close to 87,000 times. That has to be an indicator of something. Thanks for your insight. I will prepare a more thought-out article soon. Daredevil1234 (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying his name, typed in quotes, comes up on Google 87,000 times, that's not any proof of notability; a good friend of mine who is in no way notable gets 61,900 hits on Google. Nor is being involved in a scandal ITSELF notability - it would be notable, however, if that scandal garnered mainstream media attention, though! Anyway, what I'll do to help you out here is "userfy" the deleted page - basically, create a new copy that'll be made a subpage of your user page, for you to work on in peace until it's ready to be re-submitted to the main article space. It'll be available at User:Daredevil1234/Draft. You can use the Move function to rename it if you like, the name is just really an irrelevant placeholder. This way you'll have your previous material on hand to work with. It should be up in just a minute or so. When you're confident it's ready, just use Move (or even good ol' copy and paste) to put it back into the mainspace. - Vianello (Talk) 03:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insight. I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW CAPITALIZATION IS SEEN AS RUDE AND ALSO UNNECESSARY. There should be a way to italicize a word for emphasis. I do however appreciate you "userfying" things. In any case I was not suggesting the returns on google confer notability in and of themselves, just that that has to be noteworthy. You'll also see the subject is mentioned in 5 published books. I also don't say the scandal per se confers notability. I believe the cumulative effect of things I note amount to the subject being a noteworthy person. Aren't there scores of people who describe the Internet as the new media? I mean this with all due respect, but it seems in countering the responses of you and the other two users I encounter alot of faulty logic. Daredevil1234 (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message at WT:Attack page

I have removed your message from WT:Attack page because that page is to discuss the policy, not individual cases. I'm not sure of the correct place to discuss the issue, but if you click the red link Perry Noble you will see that the article has been deleted twice, and has been moved to User:Daredevil1234/Draft. You probably should address the question with one of the administrators who deleted the page. However, the edit summary in the deletion log is pretty clear: No explanation of the subject's significance. See WP:CSD#A7.

This is your message from WT:Attack page:

Criticism per se is not an attack

The user Timneu22 nominated an article I wrote on Perry Noble as a candidate for deletion. He stated I devoted two sections to criticisms of the subject and that was therefore an attack. I believe the reasoning is faulty. Also the subject matter of the article, which it appears was not sufficiently reviewed, does not include unfair criticism. The subject of the article is a person largely known by criticism of his positions. I merely point to it. My article was journalistic and was treated like polemic, which it was not. I don't feel it's necessary to reproduce the article here, but please visit my talk page to learn more of this. I will refine the article to overcome any technical deficiency and attempt to create it again. I'm anticipating alot of problems. Daredevil1234 (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My quick look at User:Daredevil1234/Draft makes me think that it is highly unlikely that the material will be suitable for an article here. If you have a report in a major and reputable newspaper where the report focuses on the subject, you could use material from the newspaper to demonstrate that notability is satisfied (you would probably need more than one such reputable newspaper article). Currently, the draft is a clear violation of WP:ATTACK. Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Daredevil1234/Draft

User:Daredevil1234/Draft, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daredevil1234/Draft and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Daredevil1234/Draft during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]