Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fivefold ministry

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fivefold ministry

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

No evidence of notability. Still no suitable sources, after being tagged for two and three quarter years. (Only one of the references even mentions "Fivefold ministry", and that one is not an independent source.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 4000 GBooks results suggest that WP:BEFORE has not been followed here. St Anselm (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can I ask what is an "independent source" here? Obviously this is a religious topic and the link is to a religious site which discusses it. I agree that the article could be better sourced but that is no reason in my book to propose deletion. Does any deletion request follow a cursory checking of Google or other search engines? And if you want to merge somewhere please say so. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The term is well-known in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. The article may not be a good one, but that implies improving it not deleting it. The primary scource for the concept is indeed one verse in Ephesians. I have no doubt that appropriate commentaries by theologians on the subject could easily be found. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2015 (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.