Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Schnoebelen


 * 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  Nakon  00:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

William Schnoebelen

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination: I previously stubbed this article because of BLP concerns. It was later PRODded by another editor, but this was removed with the addition of some external links which don't look entirely convincing. Therefore, I have brought it here - I have no opinion. Black Kite 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I've heard of this guy, he's written 6 books that I'm aware of and frequently gives lectures for The Prophecy Club. I'm sure some good references can be found. --RucasHost (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment After looking through the article's history I've noticed that you deleted about 80% of the articles content. --RucasHost (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:BLP should not be a concern because Scnoebelen openly admits to his checkered past in his books and lectures. --RucasHost (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment RucasHost, I don't think its our concern about his checkered past you mention, its more our concern that he actually did the things he says he did. No one other than his own people confirm it and it's extremely unlikely at best. Hooper (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment That's fine, but it'd need to be sourced. Black Kite 15:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Well it seems some people really went after this article with a vengeance. Adding way too many tags (eg. for things that already had references mentioned) and generally acting in bad faith. Anyway, I've been trying to fix things up and I have added a few new references. I'd also like to point out that there are articles on this man on four other Wikipedias. --RucasHost (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment To be honest, I thought that the tags made a fair enough point -- perhaps a little overzealous but not in bad faith. Remember that we do have to adhere to WP:BLP as a matter of legal responsibility. Having said that, my vote is to Keep the article, as the guy is clearly a notable figure (as a published author and controversial religious commentator) despite the difficulty we seem to be having in finding appropriate references. I think the references and links we have are enough to establish his notability, even if they are perhaps not formal enough to establish much else. BreathingMeat (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure about the notability, but I don't agree with the BLP stubbing. A handful (handful, hence the reason I'm not convinced of notability) of hits on g-news (search all dates) and g-scholar (plus a huge number of google and g-video hits) seem to confirm what was in the old revision. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it is rather clear that it has been so far impossible to provide verifiable reliable sources for this article. A lot of articles survive AfDs because there's a consensus that the subject is notable despite the fact that the formalities of our notability requirements are not met. I'm quite ambivalent on this issue. __meco (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Evangelist of no known notability.  KleenupKrew (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, for a few reasons. None of the references in the article can truly be considered a "high-quality reference", something explicitly called for in WP:BLP. The subject gets some google hits, but most of them seem to be products of his own self-promotion. I can't find a single article in a reliable source. Even eviscerating to a stub isn't very feasible - there still needs to be an indication of why the subject is notable, and simply stating that he is an evangelist won't be adequate. If someone can find better sources than I could, I would reconsider my !vote. Tan   |   39  18:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He is being used as an expert in a couple documentaries of the conspiracy genre that I am aware of, namely the anti-masonic Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings and the anti-Mormon documentary The God Makers. __meco (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - If only his sources say he is what he is, and no one else can verify, and his books are nominal, he isn't notable. And for futhur comment, i will not be alledged to have acted in bad faith when I placed the fact tags that needed to be placed.  Hooper (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There are also sources from Chick Publications (Jack Chick) & Saints Alive Ministry (Ed Decker). --RucasHost (talk)
 * Comment - Two organizations which he works for or has worked for, and Chick Publications is hardly reliable. Hooper (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Schnoebelen is a non-notable evangelist. The problem is there is no reliable source that suggests he is notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep True, he's not widely known (and that through his Chick connection), but he's likely to be read in some Fundamentalist church circles, and seen as "authoritative" despite facts to the contrary. (Also, young people in and around Fundamentalism are told The Lord of the Rings, comic-book heroes, and such recent mythologies are "evil", and sometimes turn to these kinds of materials as an alternative. I can't cite that, since it'd break WP:OR.) I'd like there to be something objective about him on Wikipedia; silence speaks too much in his favor, IMO. Zephyrad (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2008 (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.