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. and not likely any to come. It's already been re-listed once, and !votes and their arguments remain roughly evenly split. While the article would benefit from some work, that's a matter for editing and not deletion. TravellingCari 03:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Youngren[edit]

Non-notable evangelist, the article has been tagged as orphaned since 2006, no reliable sources. There is one hit on Google news for this name, but it's a passing mention on a sports page about his son-in-law. This might qualify as a reliable source, but he's really just the minister at a non-notable church. Corvus cornix_talk 01:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally fails notability in every way. no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the otter chorus. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Folks, if you're going to use Google News to search for sources you need to not just search over the past month. He's gotten coverage in the Washington Post, Inter Press Service, India Abroad, and the New York Times. Granted, the article needs a lot of work. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Samuel J. Howard. Seems notable enough. I've added the references to the article. JASpencer (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of claims involving big numbers, all totally unreferenced. Nothing notable has been demonstrated. WWGB (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the numbers are correct, he is certainly notable. The only problem appears to be that (like many others) the article is unreferenced (or indaequately referenced), as well as orphaned. Improve Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What numbers? Corvus cornix_talk 05:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is still unsourced, topic seems non-notable with trivial coverage. --Banime (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Banime (talk · contribs), some minor coverage and a few minor mentions but no real significant discussion. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Close call. I ended up with the same articles Samuel J. Howard listed, but I don't think they add up to the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources required by WP:BIO. --Amalthea^Talk 01:04, 26 September 2008 (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.