Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Muthee

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 per the consensus to do so. I've ignored the only two delete !votes because of the presumption that this article should be speedied (speedy is not applicable here, and this is specifically why I've ignored it).

The deletion nomination only mentions two concerns; BLP1E and Coatrack and I will oblige EconomicsGuy in breaking down my rationale for closing as keep.

The article has significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion. Many of the editors involved in the discussion have either argued against the application of one event, or expanded the article to show how it does not apply, coupled with proper sourcing. Likewise, coatrack is not a reason to delete in itself (If there are issues with the content, then we fix them with NPOV editing.).There were no other concerns (other than "its problematic"), and the remainder of the !votes agree that the subject of the article is notable. So I see no reason to wait for an admin to close this debate, as I do not think there is sufficient reason to delete at this time. (NAC) Synergy 02:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Muthee

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. The witch-hunt claims are extremely problematic per WP:BLP, and there's only a single reliable source (The Daily Mail) which is based on a claim that Muthee appeared at Sarah Palin's church. Kelly ^hi! 16:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThis is pretty much a speedy in disguise. Hobartimus (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Speedy delete'~~ Coatrack and thinly disguised BLP violation. This really ought to be speedied because this totally crosses the line. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to neutral I've asked the arbitrators for clarification and though I still don't believe this passes BLP the opposition to that point of view is now so massive that I withdraw my !vote. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pretty much the definition of a coatrack article. Sashaman (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to very weak keep as the article has been improved. Still very coatrackish. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save This guy shows up in hundreds of news stories. Google his name and it shows up 9,000 times, and this number is rapidly growing. Just because his existence is an embarassment to people does not make this a coatrack article. The Wikipedia entry on Jerimiah Wright is quite lengthy and I don't see you guys trying to stop that story. Kryzadmz (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, please see WP:WAX which explains why making reference to another poor article isn't considered a valid argument here. Secondly, if you feel that an article should be deleted, WP:DPR explains how. Thirdly, you might want to change your talk link as I've explained on your talk page. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; this guys' been on the news on and off for a decade or so, and has had some full-length biopics in mainstream media sources. His story's reasonably well-known in a sub-section of the U.S. evangelical community that believes in the idea of spiritual warfare, and he seems to be prominently featured in a number of that community's materials. The current article doesn't reflect any of that (it's all Palin-related sources), but that's a reason to improve the article. I've made a start at doing so, based mainly on this 1999 Christian Science Monitor article. I don't think the witch-hunt claims raise BLP problems, since it's not as if he's being accused of witch-hunting by other people and disagreeing with it; he himself supports hunting witches, which is his main theological position and claim to fame. --Delirium (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Delirium. Article seems balanced and not WP:COATRACK; it only mentions Palin in one short NPOV sentence sourced from two mainstream media sources. Inevitably the mainstream sources focus on his ties with Palin, so the real question is: should be this be moved to wikinews? His bio is still pretty sketchy. VG ☎ 00:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be okay with merging it in somewhere, but there doesn't currently seem to be a good place for it. If spiritual warfare had a section or sub-article detailing some of the more prominent modern-day claims, it'd fit well there. --Delirium (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article seems balanced and not WP:COATRACK You're kidding, right? The creator of this article rushed to the Sarah Palin talk page immediately afterwards to push this crap. That was the only purpose with this article. I'm taking this straight to DRV if this is kept. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that it was created for non-good-faith reasons doesn't imply that a different article shouldn't appear at the same title (it's been substantially rewritten since the initial contribution, with almost all the Palin material removed). --Delirium (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Like I said I'm taking this to DRV if this is not deleted so none of that matters. EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Has been in the news over the course of a decade for multiple events, so no claim of WP:BLP1E holds water. We have multiple reliable sources talking about the man. That the more recent coverage has been about possible connections to Palin doesn't alter that situation. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep COATRACK is not a wikipedia policy and not a valid reason to delete (merely an essay). Notability appears to have been established in the news. Suspect bad faith nom by Kelly who has been previously warned for his POV edits regarding Sarah Palin. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ever heard of WP:BLP? Also, comment on content, not the nominator. EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment on the content? Didn't you just say above "The creator of this article rushed to the Sarah Palin talk page immediately afterwards to push this crap. That was the only purpose with this article"? From what I see of this page, it is factual, notable, and well sourced. The page seems mostly about the guy himself. not Sarah Palin. Plus this content works much better here than on the tightly controlled Sarah Palin page. COATRACK is therefore an invalid argument.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a little while at least. It's only two days old, so let's give it more time and see if anything develops. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been bold! What do you guys think of it now? :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: delete arguments seem irrelevant, focusing on WP:BLP-compliance, WP:COATRACK etc., which are mere WP:PROBLEMS that have no bearing on the notability of the article's subject. The latter is not in question, given the reams of significant coverage of this individual availabe through a cursory Google News search. Stub, balance, protect if you must, but do not be so hysterical as to delete. the skomorokh 14:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Skomorokh; a Google News search clearly demonstrates the notability of the subject. --Saforrest (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skomorokh. -- Banjeboi 20:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I honestly don't see the "only one event" this person is notable for. And I don't see any BLP issues that would require deletion in order to fix the supposed problems. --Pixelface (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I've been working on it. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep don't know what it looked like before, but looks great now!--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at FangedFaerie's work [1] (all intervening edits by this editor), I certainly understand why this article was nominated for deletion. I think this is a good rescue by him, comparable to my rescue [2] of Otis Moss III during its AFD. The conclusion now seems obvious - the problem now will be keeping inappropriate coatracking out of the article. I wish I had more faith in our editors about this... GRBerry 20:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closer Per the response I got from the arbitrators on my request for clarification today I ask that the closing administrator explain how he/she has applied the appropriate ruling in the Footnoted quotes ruling which I understand from the arbitrators' response is the relevant ruling. During this AfD we have now had two attempts to reinclude disputed material that was removed on BLP grounds so I believe this deserves more than a simple counting of votes. Thanks, EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is noteworthy. Coatrack issues can be dealt with in other ways.--scuro (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2008 (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.