Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Sheffey


 * 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. This was very close to closing as delete, but there doesn't seem to be enough agreement on whether the documentary made about this person is enough to establish his notability. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 18:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert Sheffey

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject does not meet notability threshold per WP:BIO, as evidenced by the fact that almost all sources are attributed to a privately published family history book. Maybe a nice article for Familypedia or Werelate.org, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. —Eustress talk 20:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that Bob Jones University made a fictionalized feature-length movie about Sheffey's life is sufficient indication that he's Wikipedia notable. It would be a disservice to readers to eliminate even an imperfect biography of such a person when their only alternate sources of information are a film and a novel.--John Foxe (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. However, if you end up keeping the article, it needs some serious editing -- a Bob Jones film and a private book are hardly sufficient evidence to support some of the claims made.JoelWhy (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is important because there's no other factual source of information about Sheffey—certainly not the BJU film or the novel on which it's based. We can't be too fussy about sources for a folk legend.--John Foxe (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, we can. In fact, we have to. Otherwise, we're left with an article based exclusively on two unreliable sources. If he's a folk legend of note, there may well be more academic sources on him. I'll look through Google Scholar to see if I come up with something, but as it stands, there just isn't enough to warrant a page, IMO.JoelWhy (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes basing articles on unreliable sources, especially when they don't have a ideological ax to grind, is preferable to prohibiting the reader from gaining no information at all. Deleting such an article means saying that reader ignorance is preferable to providing limited light.--John Foxe (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Our personal opinions isn't the issue here. It's a matter of abiding with Wiki policy.JoelWhy (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete A private book and a movie by an interested party are insufficient evidence per nom and JoelWhy Symes (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear here: the movie is fiction. But it provides a reason why a factual article is needed—even if that article is mostly based on unreliable sources.--John Foxe (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment As well as the film, there is a biographical novel about Sheffey by Jess Carr (The Saint of the Wilderness, Commonwealth Press, 1978). There's a little bit about Sheffey (not enough for notability) in Pearisburg And Giles County by Terri L. Fisher and something on JSTOR here (if you have access). There's a lot of bloggy/sermony content on Christian sites, but it makes me suspect there may be proper references out there somewhere. Reviews of the Jess Carr book or film would also help (if they have been reviewed). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The JSTOR article is already cited in the article. Carr's novel's there too.--John Foxe (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Being the subject of a film confers notability, through WP:CREATIVE #3 if nothing else. StAnselm (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree if this were some kind of major release. But, a small, private school making a "documentary"? That's an extremely low threshold for establishing notability.JoelWhy (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The main problem with this article is that essentuially it has only one source, a privately printed book of 1935. This is no doubt the source for everything else.  On the other hand the fact that Bob Jones University took the trouble to make the film suggests that they think he is notable.  Since they are an academic institution, I think WP ought to be willing to rely on theri view.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep notable on the basis of the film,. We ought to consider expanding the sections on that, and on the book,and possibly removing some of the anecdotes, bt there is the basis for an article here.  DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability, Google count low. Also looks like no prospect of basing article on reliable sources - so notability aside no chance of article meeting Wikipedia standards. Interested parties can make the book available online. 139.149.1.230 (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2012 (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.