Talk:Chuck Missler

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus (so keep). An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Missler talking about spontaneous generation in peanut butter on youTube

This link is to a video - supposedly of Missler - talking about spontaneous generation in peanut butter. Peanut Butter First, he is disputing evolution. Unfortunately for him, the origin of life is not addressed by the Theory of Natural Selection, which is what is generally meant by the word "evolution." Second, I don't believe that there are any theories on the origin of life that state that anything living can be synthesized from peanut butter whether you call it "Matter" or not. This is simply rubbish. It does not rise to the level of a point of view, neutral or not, because ignorance is just not a point of view. If it were, Wikipedia wouldn't have editors. b_calder 16:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So add a section discussion the video, criticisms, etc. etc. If the man is dead wrong and foolish as he obviously is, then just back it up with a section and VIOLA, no problem. I think the video deserves a section talking about it. --OMG LAZERS 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. It's such a minor thing, a passing meme that will be forgotten in a couple of weeks. It didn't garner particularly wide notice, did it? (A mention on Pandagon doesn't really count in this context.) And it's not particularly in keeping with our policies to turn articles on guys like this into "look at this fundy nutter" fests. Grace Note 01:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick google brings up hundreds of references to it. Meme it may be, but its bold illogic for the purpose of misleading the public is creditable (particularly as it appears to be part of a professionally produced 'item'). His 'contribution' to whatever it's part of might could easily be cited. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/441/ for instance is the 'text' version from his own online ministry. From the mouth of babes.--Koncorde 14:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Further note - to Hrafn - given that the peanut butter thing is pretty much the only thing the guy is notable for. It seems bizarre not to include it. What would qualify as notable?--80.194.170.170 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that the peanut butter thing clearly isn't notable (no significant coverage in reliable sources, per WP:NOTE), if it is "pretty much the only thing the guy is notable for", then the guy probably isn't notable either, and the article should, eventually, be merged/redirected/deleted. To be "notable" it has to be something more than just getting laughed at, in passing, in marginal sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [11]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections." so arguments over verifiability is one thing, removing stuff from a wiki on the basis that you think one part isn't "notable" however isn't covered.Koncorde (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would point out to Koncorde that 80.194.170.170 was defending the inclusion of "the peanut butter thing" on the basis of notability, which was why I was addressing that issue above. I deleted the material on the basis of lack of reliable sources, the trivial nature of the information, and the trivialising treatment that the few marginal sources that could be found gave it. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. [...] Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article." (my emphasis) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

JamesMLane's revert

JamesMLane has reverted the redirect with the edit summary: "redirecting as nn is improper when the article has survived AfD". I would point out that:

1. AfDs have repeatedly disavowed control over merges and redirects as being under their purview (with 'redirect' consensuses often closed as 'keep's).
2. AfDs quite frequently result in 'keep's for NN articles: WP:ILIKEIT & WP:IAR appears to override WP:NOTE more often than not there. In any case a two year old AfD is hardly controlling over redirection, which does not require AfD approval.
3. The second AfD on this article was ludicrously superficial (and the first was "no consensus").
4. Missler is clearly a case of WP:ONEEVENT (at least as far as sourced information goes), so an article on him seems to be inappropriate.

Unless anybody can come up with a strong countervailing argument, it is my intention to restore the redirection. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think Missler is nonnotable, you should list the article on AfD on that basis. The incessant relisting, as happened with Daniel Brandt for example, is abusive and improper, but I agree with you that a two-year-old AfD can reasonably be revisited. Until there's a new AfD, however, the question whether there should be a separate article on Missler has been resolved in favor of keeping one. Your personal opinion that the previous AfD was "superficial" doesn't give you the right to override it. Your edit had the same practical effect as if the AfD had been closed as "delete". If there's a policy that allows that, please give me the link. You could reasonably make Chuck Missler a redirect only if, for example, you were moving the article to a different title.

As to the merits, I don't see him as a one-event figure. The article lists him as the article of two books published by Thomas Nelson. I just Googled this search: "Chuck Missler" -wikipedia -plagiarism (to screen out most Wikipedia mirrors and at least some of the articles about the plagiarism incident) and got 134,000 hits. Neither of those facts is dispositive but they're indications that we should have an article about him. JamesMLane t c 09:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)