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 smite with fire and brimstone. Krimpet (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Clement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. No independent reliable sources. Lexis Nexis search shows no articles to verify any of its claims. —Ocatecir ^Talk 01:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention NPOV problems most places you look. DagnyB 01:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clement's credentials have been referenced by receiving ministries all around the United States. His book Secrets of the Prophetic is a biographical sketch in accordance with and supporting the information posted in the article. What else would one be looking for to verify information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.103.219 (talk)

WP:V has all you need for verifiable information; WP:N and, in particular, WP:BIO will help you find what you need for the notability factors. Also pay attention to WP:BLP as Mr. Clement is, evidently, not dead. =^_^= As for Secrets, I'm not sure a biography would would count as a reliable source (yep, check there too). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For now, Delete. The biggest problem I really have is a lack of notability seemingly outside of word-faith Christianity, and nothing to really verify it with. Has huge issues with POV here, and almost seems to be a promotional article for a Christian prophet. =O.o= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hmm, since he speaks for God, I guess he didn't have to sign the comment above. He appears to be really good at predicting things years after they've happened. This is not a notable skill. I predict this spam will be deleted. Soon. Qworty 02:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:HAIR WP:RS. the_undertow ^talk 03:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per everyone. Has a very promotional feel to it as well. I like the post-predictions too. --Charlene 04:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• SUGGEST REPAIR RATHER THAN DELETE Not sure where your coming from regarding "post-predictions" as I found Clement's prophecies are listed every week after each of his events in the US. Apparently he gives the predictions in his public meetings, makes recordings available, then has the evening transcribed for public posting on his website 1-2 weeks after each event. When something comes out in the news they post it again to show that it has come to pass. You will find the Churches listed are some of the largest and most reputable in the US with well known leaders. Unfortunately, it sounds like this is becoming more of a controversy with religion or the possibility of the supernatural than anything. This and the above are not signed, simply because I chose to revise the article, and have no interest in becoming a "regular" on here. I was under the impression that I need not sign? This article was originally posted by someone else and I simply did a little research to help. I agreed that it needed to be informative and less biased, but I think according to the preceding comments on this page we're more at risk of taking a pessimistic approach, which of course is also not balanced. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.108.159 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 11 May 2007 (PCT)

Comment. His predictions are so vague that that they can be fulfilled in a great variety of ways, much like those of Sollog. This is nothing more than an old carnival trick. We've already got enough articles about stregas, witches, warlocks, the Mormon belief that the Garden of Eden is located in Jackson County, Missouri--whatever. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. This article is a vanity advertisement for a man who pretends to predict the future. Let him go buy a website with the donations he takes in. Also, Wikipedia articles do not have to be 50-50 balanced. Such a balance would in fact violate the Undue Balance Policy. The article should reflect the preponderance of the evidence, not a 50-50 balance. In this case, there is zero evidence that this article is anything more than an advertisement. Qworty 09:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete primarily because his first name is Kim. I digress. If making vague predictions is all that is needed for notability criteria in articles, every weatherman in the country should have his own page. I'm sorry, but predicting a hurricane in the height of hurricane season is like predicting in September that the Devil Rays won't win the World Series. This guy isn't a prophet, he's just like the psychics on televison. He plays the odds. And if we want to get technical, the biography section of the article is copied directly from here[1]. I'm sure there are more violations like this, but frankly I'm not going to spend the time to find them. If he can see the future, then tell him to start sending me lottery numbers. When I start winning I'll change my mind. --Cyrus Andiron 13:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, problematic article which fails WP:BIO as well. Burntsauce 16:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Notability not establish, major POV issues and apparent COI. Plus the copyvio mentioned above. If you removed all this stuff all that would be left would be the guy's name and therefore ((db-empty))! andy 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete Do as you wish, but I suggest finish cleaning it up and keep it. --EscMatrix 20:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It doesn't help that the article reads more like an advertisiement for the man than an encyclopedic article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge are we debating about whether prophecies are being fulfilled? we just have to decide whether its notable. I think it is, but is is based on the blogs. I think we can verify what he says easily enough, but I see no reliable source for even the basic events of his life or career. The work then should be merged into the article on his church.DGG 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can't believe I just suggested that (I can't stand the guy), but I am suggesting that it be kept. He is very notable in the Word of Faith community, and is either loved or despised in the Pentecostal Community (unfortunately mostly loved). It looks to me like the person writing the article doesn't know how to properly source the article and just put the sources down as External Links. If the article has POV problems then fix them, don't delete the article.Theophilus75 22:36, 14 May 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.