Deletion of Christian evangelist scandals

Comment: for violating  by establishing a pattern of misconduct by a certain group of people.  The information should be mentioned in each individual's article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: No point in creating an umbrella article if it inherently allows far less context and content than |living people and |neutrality policies allow
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NPOV)

Comment: per  - You cant take a bunch of unrelated facts and tie them up to paint a broad picture.   Mention these in the appropriate articles about the person, but not all together like this to make a point
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: No better title for a list of Christian Evangelicals involved in scandals, and theres enough of those of note to more than justify coverage of it as a phenomena. Any individual POV issues should be dealt with individually, and strictly, since  applies, but since this article has had a lot of attention already from people looking to delete things under  that shouldn't be a probelm
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: the bios are a bad idea because the scandals are presented out of context and thus fail . Further, the selection of the people is arbitrary and thus also POV. Remove the bios and the uncited statements from the lead leaves nothing left; not even a stub. Where then to go? Well, these is a perfectly decent section at Televangelism#Scandals. Sure it needs sourcing but it has good potential. That section should be allowed to develop organically and can be broken out again, into a separate article, if it grows too big as a normal editorial action
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)