Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Voris

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. Unanimous consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Voris

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

This is a rather peculiar instance of a WP:Walled garden monster. The subject of the article is the founder of a non-notable media company (referred to in the article as an apostolate, but it does not have the backing of any formal church or denomination), and has received some WP:ONEEVENT style media attention for conflicts owing to certain radical statements he has made. The problem is that we need to identify Voris as notable per WP:BIO, and I just don't see it. No biographies have been written about Voris and all the sources that are reliable in our article are simply quoting him rather than discussing him as a notable person. I note that his media network, "churchmilitant.com" does not seem to be all that notable either, in spite of it serving as a kind of ultra-right-wing bastion for Catholics who are on the verge of falling off into the traditionalist/sedevacantist club. However, detailed coverage of this niche community does not seem to be forthcoming and in spite of internet-based controversy of the message-board sort, I do not see much in the way of reliably sourced information that would let us write anything like a halfway decent article. The current article is really awful, to be clear. It traffics in rumor, soapboxing, and coatracking to such an extent that I just decided that WP:TNT is appropriate (though re-creation is not advisable either). jps (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a NYTimes article which is a profile of Voris and churchmilitant.com https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/us/church-militant-theology-is-put-to-new-and-politicized-use.html It seems to me to establish notability. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the above as well as stuff like this [1] means that (yes) he does appear to be very notable as a force behind the current ideology of the whitehouse.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's an article from the Detroit Free Press that was republished on the front page of today's USA Today. If Voris doesn't have a page, then his group should. There's clearly been coverage about both topics, but it's just a matter of cleaning up his bio. APK whisper in my ear 08:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current article relies way too much on sources created by Voris. However there has clearly been enough coverage of him in sources indepdent of him, both identified in the article and in general, that an article is justified. The claim above that his theology has any connection to Donald J. Trump is just plain ludicous though. Also, the notion that Voris's views are wide spread probably can be over stated, but his statements and actions do recieve coverage is reliable sources at a level that justified having an article. The article does need to be reworked, but having it is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This doesn't seem so much as a notability rather than a likeability issue. Even an "ultra-right-wing bastion for Catholics" should be there if it's notable enough. JASpencer (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient press coverage establishes notability. And "Walled garden" addresses problems in lack of linking to other articles. It is not grounds for deletion, but for wikification. Dimadick (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2017 (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.