Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Kunneman


 * 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. Although the article has been worked on, consensus is still that this is not an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hank Kunneman

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This was tagged for speedy deletion a few hours ago, and since then I've been looking at it in the CSD queue trying to decide if A7 actually applies or not (and by the fact no other admin has deleted it, I assume they've all been in the same quandary). To me, the fact that it's taking this long to decide means it's not inappropriate for Wikipedia and thus WP:A7 doesn't apply, so here we are. It's right on the borderline; the sources are all very poor quality and a quick WP:BEFORE search turns up a lot of passing mentions and froth in blogs, but nothing obvious I can see that's usable as a Wikipedia source. As a contentious BLP, this isn't a page we should be keeping unless and until reliable sources can be found. &#8209; Iridescent 09:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  &#8209; Iridescent 09:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions.  &#8209; Iridescent 09:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The major source used in this article is Right Wing Watch. As an established non-profit with a history of reporting in this area I believed them to be a reliable source. Is this not the case? Or is it only the more "blogish"/casual sources in this article that are the problem? (Forgive my ignorance as I'm just getting my feet wet in editing Wikipedia. I am certainly interested in improving the quality of this article, for its sake and the sake of learning for future articles.) Jimsorzo (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I know nothing of the individual and thus take no specific view on him. However, Right Wing Watch sounds like a politically motivated website that is set up to attack people like the subject.  If so, this is a POV source, however accurate in its content; meaning that this is in nature an ATTACK article.  Having said that, I find some of the the views reported obnoxious, but that is merely my POV.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The most recent RSN discussion on Right Wing Watch appears to consider the source reliable with attribution. –– FormalDude  talk  22:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I tagged this article for speedy deletion because the subject seemed notorious but not notable. I think a discussion here at an AFD is more appropriate than speedy deletion and want to thank Iridescent for starting this discussion. As it stands today, it looks like this will be relisted at least once more and might be headed towards a "soft delete". Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Yuck Christianity Today, Patheos (Which is as far as I can tell a curated blogspace), Eternity News  which appears reasonable, all provide coverage of this guy's pro-Trump prophecy and its aftermath. Is he notable? Probably. He's certainly getting a lot of namedrops for his brand of Christianity-as-politics. Do we really need to have an article on him? Um... I'm unconvinced. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The only GNG-compliant sources are the multiple instances of coverage by Right Wing Watch but that is an outlet dedicated specifically to finding and pointing out the worst excesses of a detrimental slice of political life. The lack of other coverage suggests that this person, however loud his ravings, has not been noticed by anyone other than those dedicated either to his viewpoint or to tracking that viewpoint.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 21:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: per WP:HEY. I've added several reliable sources that meet WP:GNG. –– FormalDude   talk  22:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: although the article seems to have a bunch of references, most of those references are only from Right Wing Watch or Newsweek. Most of his prophecies have only been covered by Right Wing Watch; the only prophecy widely covered is his Trump election one, and fifteen minutes of fame isn't enough to warrant an article. TL &#124; The Legend  talk 03:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * leaning towards delete per User:TL The Legend's accurate analysis. Not exactly a BLP1E but almost there. The sources for biographical information (Biography, Ministry and Writing sections) are atrocious. Cavarrone 17:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The article appears to have been created with a strong POV, not in an encyclopedic tone. The subject does not have enough coverage to have a properly-sourced non-POV article, since all of the sources are based on reportings from Right Wing Watch. I think Eggishorn said it well. WikiGuruWanaB (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.