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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International House of Prayer[edit]

Unsourced, poorly formatted, and contains no assertion of notability. List of "references" is just a collection of links to Christian websites with no internal citations. Entirely promotional. SuaveArt (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if article creator, who obviously knows subject well, can provide any printed references to this church, in mainstream christian magazines, that would help. online only is very iffy. i dont think we expect notability to be found in general mainstream sources, of course. notability within a notable community can potentially count. but so far, we have nothing solid to allow the article to stay.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputing AfD

Would like to work out any problems, and not just jump to deletion. If you've noticed, I've been working on the page daily trying make it neutral as possible while giving information that people would find helpful about this organization. Will be adding Inline Citations soon as possible. This page has a reason to exist, and has reason to exist full of information about the organization, positive and negative. This page is highly trafficked, and we must try to provide all necessary information in this article. There are several critical, satirical, and negative references. Also just because some of the references are Christian based doesn't mean they are unreliable third party sources. They are still third party sources talking about the organization many of which are Christian news, magazines, etc. The book citations are both books by the leadership and also books criticizing the leadership, organization, aspects of ministry, and flavor of Christianity. Feel free to delete any of the external links...but they all have something to do with this ministry, and can all provide valuable information to the readers about organization and its beliefs/practices. I've worked hard at talking about the negative views towards this ministry and assure you it hasn't been promotional on purpose, I would like help making it more encyclopedic without leaving out information that viewers would find helpful. Everything in this article is fact....and I believe helpful..if you're saying that facts advertise this organization, i'm sorry....I up for changing some wording if needed. And if its just citations and more references...i'll be working on citations soon...and we can all work at getting more references by third parties.-travisharger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs) 03:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have some printed references I can add, it will have to be tomorrow though.-travisharger

it also should be said that some of the online magazine references also have identical printed copies...I'll add those as well ASAP-travisharger

• Keep - Current references are persuasive that IHOP is notable. Also, it's interesting and it passes my personal 'would I expect to find this explained on wikipedia' smell test! Thparkth (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a quick google news search turns up plenty coverage of the subject [1]. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 08:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep -I agree, I've heard of this organization before, I've even seen Lou Engle on Foxnews talking about his Call events. they might be a little weird, but defiantly notable. I also like Thparkth find this article interesting and informative. Maybe just a little more clean up, but other than that I say it stays. 72.214.67.12 (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of the references. Clearly a large franchise. BTW, there is no requirement for something to be notable to the mainstream, just in its field, which in this case I would consider Evangelical US Christians. Of course references to Christian, Jewish, or Moslem sources will come predominantly from publications of that religious group, just as references to people from Japan, or Turkey, or France come predominantly from publications from those countries. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. With dozens of references to significant publications, calling this "Unsourced...and contains no assertion of notability" is stretching my assumption of good faith. The links I followed took me straight to pages specifically referencing IHOP. I wish all Wikipedia articles were this well referenced. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unsourced because the sources section is just a collection of links with no internal citations (so there's no way to tell what text in the article is covered by the sources and what isn't). Therefore unless I checked each of those sources myself, I wouldn't know how well covered this article truly is. I didn't write this piece of junk (even if it is notable, currently it's written like a shameless promotion, not an article) so the burden's on the author to but a little effort into their "work". If they aren't even willing to do that much, then I see no reason not to AFD this since currently it's an embarrassment to this website. But I will be happy to do their own work for them and re-write this article if it's kept. Thanks.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment are there any suggestions on wording to make it appear less of a fan site? I've personally have tried hard at keeping it neutral, and am unsure how to do much of a better job. The information I've included, I think is important, interesting, and worthy to remain in the article. But might need help from everyone else in cleaning it up a little more. The definition of what makes this an advocacy page is not solid, everyone has different opinions...if you have a suggestion...we can all discuss it and i'm sure we can come to a conclusion. This comment will also be posted in the discussion page.Travisharger 23:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs)

• Keep - The pastor has notariety, the church has notariety - outside of Wikipedia notariety standards as well as within Wikipedia notariety standards. The article, as it is, is weak. I have tried numerous times to improve it, however, invariably someone comes along and reworks it to where it is either without a whole lot of included info or where a lot of info included is definitely POV. As with many Wikipedia articles where the subject is Christian-based, you have extremes in editing on both sides. We need to find that happy medium that keeps pertinent info (referenced, of course) and keeps it from looking like a fan-site. But deletion? No - that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater and is very premature, IMO. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and help fix. It needs in line citations and it needs re-writes all over the place, but the subject is definitely notable. JosiahHenderson (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the User:SuaveArt on the non-notability of the subject - which IMHO is yet to be established (BTW what is "notariety"?), hardly any independent mainstream coverage. I am also uncomfortable with User:Travisharger - [2] a new single purpose account created for salvaging this blatantly promotional article (with its inbuilt strawman fluff), as also the substantially self professed Christian (no offence intended) editors chanting to retain it. BTW I perceive User:Travisharger's statement "and can all provide valuable information to the readers about organization and its beliefs/practices." to be an admission of using WP for self promotion. The article is also misleading because it conveys the impression that there is only one IHOP based in Kansas city. What about this [3] this [4] this [5] or this [6] <--> Who is Dr Fred Ogunfiditimi - Supreme prelate of International House of Prayer ? Annette46 (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Disagree....this is a very notable organization, my attempts to write an article on IHOP is by no means mindless promotion...this is a group that draws much attention because to charismatics, Pentecostals, Christians in general, members of Kansas city, cult awareness groups...and I believe that many people want to know more about this organization Good and Bad, They are very controversial, and they deserve a resource on this site that provides a neutral look at the ministry. Why is there soo much "Cult-Warnings" of Mike Bickle and IHOP if they're such an un-notable organization? Why all the fuss? oh yeah...cause every time they have a conference they have over 50,000 people tune in online. Many people either love IHOP or Hate IHOP and find it a huge threat to Christianity. I've done my best at writing an article that is un-biased and open to any changes and suggestions....but I believe that this organization should have an article full of information. As for notability, again they've been featured in many Christian magazines, news sites, and even the Kansas City Star's front page a few months ago... I've looked for the article from the Star, but its archived and hard to find online, I've emailed them and asked for a copy as well other printed magazine's such as Relevant and Charisma. They're are books on the Kansas City Prophets and Mike Bickle...mostly against his ministry. I understand the frustration with the article when it comes to wording...but to say that the article has to reason to exist is a stretch i cant understand. As far as me personally being a Christian has nothing to do with anything...I desire lovers and haters of IHOP to come together and make a resource everyone can agree upon and for the community to use. Me being a Christian is no different than be being a fan of Google Android, Taco Bell, Tim Burton, Conservatism, Certain Philosophies, Hockey, LEVI Jeans, Bon Jovi, etc doesn't render me unable to write an unbiased article. Is it more of a challenge sure....but do you think the 100% of the writers of the article have no interest in the subject...I think close to 100% do and thats why they're taking the time to write the article. Personally I am loosing respect User:SuaveArt , i've seen him flag numerous article and claim them unnotable just because he hadn't heard of them...personally arguing that Charisma Magazine as an unnotable magazine...yet has been around for about 30 years, and have hundreds or thousands of subscribers....just because you know nothing of the subject doesn't make them unnotable....should their be references and citations..of course......strawman argument...where and when is that in the article? I've stated facts found in references i've listed...and continue to list more..and i'm about 40% with citations. As for it misleading other to believe that their is only one IHOP in KC....that is the name of the organization...that is how it is promoted and marketed....if you would like we can change every IHOP reference to actually say International House of Prayer.Travisharger 19:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. a) Don't take this personally - I dont. I'm doing this as part of the WP:NN project (I believe encylopedias must maintain substantial thresholds for entry) not becuase I have a POV on Christians. b) WP is all about the WP:5P, which includes (enduring) Notability and Verifiability from Reliable Sources. c) Please check out the GoogleBook cites I have listed and see how it fits in with the article as it presently stands. d) What I like is irrelevant - you (and the article) must conform to the 5 PillarsAnnette46 (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree.. I would appreciate help in pointing out what about this article is deemed as promotional...that seems to be one of the main arguments but nobody seems to have pointed out what could or should be changed. i think we all can agree, after a little research that this is a well known ministry, I want to know how we can create an unbiased article about them...I've done my hardest just to lay out simple well known facts about the ministry....I don't see anywhere that I try to promote them. If the facts do that, that isn't my fault. Again up to any suggestions for wording. I've gone into great extent and showing the common controversy, i've tried to be fair to the organization, but not gone out of my way to do so. I've looked at your sites/books...some of those ministries are connected with IHOP-KC...some are not...or might not be, i'm not sure. But IHOP-KC and the International House of Prayer is how the ministry in this article is represented. I included an section in the article called similar ministries which talks slightly about the other IHOP'sTravisharger 19:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. The first step would be to STOP editing the article or participating in this Afd for a short time (say 24 hours). Take a break to allow other editors to discuss / analyze the article objectively. Secondly, imagine that WP is a paper encyclopedia and the article had only 200 words available to it. What would you retain and what would you discard? PS: Use ':' to indent your comments when you return from your break. BTW, WP is not about "winning" Annette46 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Annette46 the article creator needs to step back, take a look at other articles and how they are written...it needs hacking back, it is NOT encyclopedic as it stands and the conflict of interest is plain to see. Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability - I received rights to that article today from the Kansas City Star...will be added to the references in a moment. Article appeared on page: A-1 (frontpage) of the Kansas City Star on July 26, 2009...Article Titled: Entreaties never stop at the International House of Prayer- by Donald Bradley....just thought it should be a part of the disscussion. You can purchase the article online at Archives Travisharger 00:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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.