Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophet Yahweh

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was: keep. sjorford →•← 14:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prophet Yahweh

Flavour of the month cook with a commercial twist ("...Prophet Yahweh may be reached at 1-IAM-THE-BOMB ($5.95 per minute)..."). Just another scam, not notable. --W(t) 03:31, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

• Keep - I see no reason for it to be deleted... it's informative and objective. His claims may be dubious, but Wiki should remain objective. Vitriol 19:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- You gotta be joking me? Why would we delete an article that has such pertinence especially at a time when it is all the rage on blogs and in genuine ufology circles (for the better or the worst)? Do you realize how many conspiracy theory articles we have on Wikipedia? Whoever wanted to delete this must have some sort of personal vendetta or deep seated anger with this individual and event. Please read about what this feature is truly for. -M4dch1ld 1:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- Where exactly do you see any commercial twist? Especially any of the kind you have noted (call-in psychic line)? He has appeared on many major news media outlets, has a considerable online presence and has by all accounts "summoned a UFO on TV". True, that may seem fantastical or out-of-this-world, but if one puts away ones opinion on such matters, there is no doubt that he was a part of some sort of unusual event which was captures on television (by respectable news media) and which has garnered much debate and interest online. -CunningLinguist 03:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- It has enough exposure in the paranormal world that basic info is useful. Chris Rodgers 04:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- Weyes, read "Problems that may require deletion" on the Deletion policy page. This dude being a cook (or not) isn't a valid reason for deletion. As for being "not notable": the plain fact that some people took the time to create the article shows that this subject is notable to some. To think that you can decide for them whether or not it is notable or not is both arrogant and ignorant.
• Keep. Notable. + Events still developing. + Media Exposure. --Da 'Sco Mon 04:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree, just because he may be a nutjob does not mean that this should be deletable. That, and it's gotten media coverage. As long as the article stays away from being too POV'd, I don't see what's wrong. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Watch the video. I think you mean "kook" BTW. --Barfooz (talk) 05:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I hear he makes a mean Burger; Should not be up for a VFD. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:27, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Even kooky burger-flipping prophets can become prominent ;-). Shem 10:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - A fried pointed his website out to me, and this page helped me find out what the Prophet is actually about Stephen 11:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Barely Keep - but needs major cleanup. I'm tempted too write an article about the nut-job in my neighborhood, but he hasn't bamboozled the news crews yet.  :) Wikibofh 15:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - very informative page about a person who obviously is receiving media coverage. - Quirk 17:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. KTNV's website makes no mention of this supposed UFO sighting. RickK 19:23, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • The video of KTNV's newscast is there for viewing. As I have heard it, they have gotten so much traffic to their site, and people calling the station seeking information on Yahweh that they have decided to distance themselves from Yahweh and only will report if there are more UFO sightings.-Da 'Sco Mon 20:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you post a link to the video? RickK 21:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • 1 Its at the bottom of the article, as are various blogs of people who saw the event on television and online -CunningLinguist 22:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, with some severe cleanup for verifiability. ESkog 02:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP, very notable, gets over a thousand google hits and, has been reported about in several magazines, websites, radio and TV shows. Do you even understand why we delete articles?--The_stuart 13:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep what more can I add axcept for my vote? --Technogiddo 13:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Absolutely Keep. -- — I. Neschek | talk 14:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's no reason this page should be deleted. --Mjp797 17:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.