Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Schnoebelen (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Dipankan ( Have a chat? ) 10:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

William Schnoebelen
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article has previously been deleted and has since been recreated. The problem the first time around, i.e. of notability, seems however not to have been resolved in a satisfactory manner. meco (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lots of news coverage and lots of mentions in books, although the details of his past have been questioned. -- 202.124.72.186 (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there is. The problem from my perspective is that all this coverage doesn't seem to find its way into the article. It is in fact almost entirely referenced with primary sources. __meco (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid reason to delete. Notability can be established by sources that are not yet in the article. -- 202.124.72.54 (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not by vaguely referring to their existence without producing them for verification. Remember that this article has once before been deleted for the lack of verifiable sources attesting to the subject's notability. Editors interested in preserving this article should have fixed that issue when the article was recreated, yet they either didn't bother with it, or they could not. That's why we're having this discussion now. __meco (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave one. You can hit the search links above for the others. -- 202.124.72.219 (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You gave me one which briefly mentions Schnoebelen in the context of claims of fraudulent credentials. That's not much. As for expecting me to expend my resources in trying to dig up something beyond that, I'm not going to do that. I'm certainly not required to. I've watched the entire video interview series "Interview with an Ex-Vampire", 6 hours or more, and I found it of interest and used it in my personal research of occult-related social phenomena. But I'm not Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has certain definite requirements that need to be met for articles to be allowed to remain here. If those with an interest in keeping the article here won't do that task, the article isn't going to survive all by itself. __meco (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

* Delete, at least in the current state, I do not see any notability demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Sources are fine, but now they should be added to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 13:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Reliable sources include |+%22Bill+Schnoebelen%22%29+-inauthor:Schnoebelen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z4C6T6CUMeKp0QW9jcHTBw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%28%22William%20Schnoebelen%22%20|%20%22Bill%20Schnoebelen%22%29%20-inauthor%3ASchnoebelen&f=false a ten-page section in a book from Éditions L'Âge d'Homme, |+%22Bill+Schnoebelen%22%29+-inauthor:Schnoebelen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z4C6T6CUMeKp0QW9jcHTBw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%28%22William%20Schnoebelen%22%20|%20%22Bill%20Schnoebelen%22%29%20-inauthor%3ASchnoebelen&f=false plenty of coverage in another from I.B. Tauris and shorter but still significant coverage |+%22Bill+Schnoebelen%22%29+-inauthor:Schnoebelen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z4C6T6CUMeKp0QW9jcHTBw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%28%22William%20Schnoebelen%22%20|%20%22Bill%20Schnoebelen%22%29%20-inauthor%3ASchnoebelen&f=false here in a book from Zondervan and |+%22Bill+Schnoebelen%22%29+-inauthor:Schnoebelen&dq=%28%22William+Schnoebelen%22+|+%22Bill+Schnoebelen%22%29+-inauthor:Schnoebelen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z4C6T6CUMeKp0QW9jcHTBw&redir_esc=y here in a journal from a publisher founded by J. Gordon Melton. There's also |+%22Bill+Schnoebelen%22%29+-inauthor:Schnoebelen&dq=%28%22William+Schnoebelen%22+|+%22Bill+Schnoebelen%22%29+-inauthor:Schnoebelen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z4C6T6CUMeKp0QW9jcHTBw&redir_esc=y this from Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Those seem fine to me. I'd like to see them incorporated into the article. __meco (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. For all above reasons.--Martianmister (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Reliable sources have been provided and the article seems to be balanced use of those sources. Stormbay (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep agree with the above, with the new sources the article satisfies GNG and can be kept. --  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  06:16, 27 May 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.