Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophet Yahweh (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 delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet Yahweh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject was a non-notable purveyor of WP:FRINGE THEORIES. Cited sources are fringe and fail WP:RS. A Google search yielded extensive coverage from fringe websites/media but nothing from reliable sources that even comes close to ringing the WP:N bell. Subject fails WP:BIO and the article fails WP:V as well as WP:PROFRINGE. An examination of the previous AfD left me profoundly unimpressed with the rationals presented in most of the KEEP !votes. Though in fairness I believe that many current guidelines did not exist at the time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add discussion of such to our project pages as an example of a classic WP:ONEEVENT/WP:NOTNEWS (specifically, I'm referring to this televised summoning of UFOs which is the rationale the teeming masses gave back in 2005 for the misguided "keep" consensus). jps (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources are nutjob websites. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously not notable. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spent a while going through page after page of search results. A whole mess of terrible sources, but the only decent one I found was his appearance on some CBS News program. That's certainly not enough, especially given the guidelines at WP:FRINGE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can only agree with all of the above. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per above. Neutrality^talk 04:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete i did the same as Rhododendrites earlier today. Killer thing is that there is nothing but COPVIO versions of those news reports left anymore so we can't even link to them. Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources involved in this article pass the reliable source test.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is apparently a lack of independent secondary sources on the subject, as required by WP:GNG. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I followed the prophet's instructions on how to call a UFO. They said we should delete it. Rhoark (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was substantially shortened prior to nomination, though all the missing content was worth deleting. I think what remains is a useful short article about someone who claimed to summon UFOs that were really Mylar/foil helium balloons. I admit WP:GNG is an issue; there are many poor-quality sources but few good-quality ones. Still, this person attracted criticism from evangelical Christian UFO skeptics as well as the usual sort of UFO skeptic. A short article is warranted, if for no other reason than to deny it the "banned from Wikipedia" badge that fringe supporters are looking for. Roches (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single report from an ABC-TV affiliate in Las Vegas has been regurgitated in odd places on the web. That's not enough to build an article on. I'd say WP:ONEEVENT definitely applies here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's abundant coverage of this guy in the high-end tinfoilhatosphere -- Coast to Coast AM, [http://www.wnd.com/2005/05/30544/ WorldNetDaily] and so on. True, those sites aren't paragons of factual accuracy. But they are for better or worse substantial media outlets, not just blogs or some guy's website. Coverage in such venues doesn't mean the Prophet's claims are true, but is enough to demonstrate notability. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- With sourcing like that, it will be very difficult to write an article that adheres to the spirit and letter of WP:NPOV. I think this is the reason that WP:GNG refers to WP:RS. Coast to Coast and WND can be used as sources in the right contexts, but I would hesitate to use these sites as something which can confer notability onto a subject because if those are the only sources available, there is basically going to be no way to write an article without falling into WP:NOR traps. The best we can do is to look at those flashes in the pan found from the 2005 TV appearances, but those seem to be WP:NFRINGE lacking (news of the weird stories in mainstream outlets intentionally do not reach the threshold for fringe articles). It may be that someone in the future finds it worthwhile to write the tell-all biography of this interesting person, or maybe his experience will be referenced in scholarly articles about UFO religions, but right now I see only sensationalism, biased accounting, and a sincere lack of the high-quality sourcing that would be necessary to write even a decent stub. jps (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response to the two keep votes. I concur with jps. As best as I can tell, the two !votes seem to concede that the article does not meet our guidelines and standards but suggest we should ignore that because the subject is somehow still notable. Alas, he is not. Given the dearth of RS sources we cannot keep this article without shredding WP:BIO and WP:NFRINGE. That's really what it boils down to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never reached our standards of notability, even around the time of his greatest fame. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - really, what is the argument otherwise? Bearian (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Sources unreliable. 2005 AfD votes were "interesting" to read. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 00:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.