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 delete. I was almost sort-of leaning towards thinking about closing this as NC, but I'm particularly unimpressed with the argument, someone [...] who takes the time to read the easy-to-find sources might figure out keywords that would show notability at some other period of his life. Speculating that sources might exist isn't a valid argument. If you think there are sources, go find them and present them. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Howard (preacher)[edit]

Philip Howard (preacher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This page is about a man only briefly at all notable in one street in London, UK. A Tag warning that Notability has not been demonstrated has been on the Page for years already. IceDragon64 (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• He was a sort of color story about a decade ago [1], [2], and he still gets mentioned, The Telegraph, 2012, "an eccentric Oxford Street preacher, Philip Howard, muzzled by Asbo for pleading, “Don’t be a sinner, be a winner with Jesus”. [3]. Frankly not certain whether this is sufficient to support an article. There are more sources [4] those came up on a news search of "Philip Howard" + "Oxford Street". Rather hard to search for him since there have been rather a lot of Philips Howard down the centuries. But someone who remembers the story, or who takes the time to read the easy-to-find sources might figure out keywords that would show notability at some other period of his life.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete: I don't think there is enough support for notability at this time, if all we can find is that he once was accused of harassment but cleared. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:CREATIVE or analogously with WP:MUSICBIO #7, or WP:ENTERTAINER #2. See for instance here[5] where a speechwriter in a trade group newsletter cites him as a "favourite public speaker". It seems his rhyming style of preaching and public personae was notable despite the local council seeing it as antisocial. He gets continued mentions as an example of a prominent street preacher [6] and has been parodied [7]. He also is still discussed as an example of the legal issue [8][9][10]. Regarding verifiability there are, as you would expect, a number of profiles available in newspaper archives (e.g. Proquest) from the time of the ASBO controversy. --Jahaza (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --Jahaza (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete -- I am not convinced that a street evangelist is likely to be notable. If his ASBO became a cause celebre, he might be notable, but not otherwise. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A street preacher can be notable--but there is no evidence that he in particular is. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there's a little bit of local coverage I'll admit, but nothing that really indicates any sort of significant fame or notability. Although I have to admire trying to make WP:ENTERTAINER fit this person, I don't agree that it's a valid comparison since he is not an entertainer, at least not deliberately. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:49, 27 February 2016 (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.