Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Missler (4th 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. Stifle (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Missler

The only thing the sources say is that he was charged with a minor crime (plagiarism). If that is all he is known for he is not notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has been around since 2005. I notified all the editors with more than one edit of this AfD. Many had left WP or had been banned as sockpuppets, etc. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ he is self published except for ~~one book~~ two books (Prophecy 20/20: Profiling the Future Through the Lens of Scripture, not a notable book) and plagiarized once (that is documented, I'm not going to speculate about his other output). Self-published is the same as not published as far as notability of authors go. The plagiarism is not article-worthy in and of itself. If I recall correctly, Missler was one of the many bios started by now banned editor and sockmaster Jason Gastrich in order to try to prop up credibility for his alma mater, the unaccredited LBU. Most of the bios were deleted in short order, a few stuck. I see no reason to keep this bio around. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The article lists two books of his published by Thomas Nelson (publisher), a major religious publishing house. Are you contending that one of them was actually self-published? JamesMLane t c 23:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My error - I thought Koinonia House published Learn the Bible in 24 hours. I have corrected my statement. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
changing to Keep now that it has been added that he was CEO of Western Digital. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Missler is (in)famous online for starring in the hilarious "Peanut butter: Atheist nightmare" video you can view here [1]. I'm indifferent to whether he has an article, but I don't see harm in having it. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: Charles "Chuck" Missler is an author, conservative Bible teacher, and founder of the Koinonia House ministry based out of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. M. From the website: K-House now reaches tens of thousands through its monthly newsletter, radio shows, cassette tapes, and conferences. More than eight million study tapes have been distributed in the U.S. and in over 35 countries around the world. [2] If the claim is true then the subject may be notable due to his role as the head of a successful church and as a writer. Will Beback talk 20:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, self-published claims of notability are not acceptable. As it turns out he was also CEO of a major company, though, that issue is now more or less moot, at least as regards this Afd. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are more than enough sources at Talk:Chuck_Missler#Article_sources to prove notability. Even if you ignore any notability conferring from his ministry, he was the CEO of Western Digital, as well as several other large publicly traded companies, and that is more than sufficient. --B (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd forgotten about his business career. CEO of Western Digital is arguably enough by itself for notability -- I've added that to the article, along with a Wired story covering one aspect of his religious ministry (his peanut butter video, which is frequently linked to). JamesMLane t c 23:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: although Missler is (in)famous for a number of things, none of these things appear to have gotten any substantial coverage in reliable sources ~~(and on the peanut butter issue, I've yet to see any coverage at all in reliable sources)~~. He appears to fall into an area analogous to WP:ACADEMIC's "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I do not think that we have sufficient information on him to create an article that isn't a series of bizarrely-disjointed (and often poorly documented) snapshots. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the past, this page has been a magnet for people putting grossly undue weight on criticism of the subject. Largely for this reason, my heart wants to agree with Hrafn, though my head has a hard time disagreeing with the "keep" arguments. For now I am neutral. I suppose the article in its current state is not too objectionable, but we'll see if it stays that way. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One source that is used seems to be clearly unreliable for a BLP. If the article is kept I will start a discussion for its removal on the talk page.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More notable than many actors, pokemons, sportsmen, pornstars, etc. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please nominate some of them and you'll have my vote. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent To be entirely honest beyond his gross and insipid stupidity I have no problem with dumping the entire article. He's not really notable (but then there are a lot of entries that might fit that criteria) and is more a subject of derision with regards to the meme video that did the rounds. At the same time, I agree with Hrafn's point of view related to "lack of independent sources", considering the majority of sources are either video sites or similar public access/contribution sites.Koncorde (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep per B. Meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KillerChihuahua and because this article does meet WP:BIO. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter triviality. He is not a public figure, and that he uses unoriginal arguments is not a public issue. BLP oneevent applies. DGG (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KillerChihuahua and Ism schism. Willking1979 (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - not a major figure, but I think the collection of mentions in reliable sources adds up, just about, to notability. Robofish (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we need to keep the article, if only on the fact alone that he was CEO of Western Digital. DavidH (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2009 (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.