Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/João de Deus (medium)

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. Daniel Case 02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

João de Deus (medium)

João de Deus (medium) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO. I can also see this as an article that will never be accurate because there aren't enough scientists debunking him. — Selmo ^(talk) 00:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

DisagreeThe article should be improved not deleted just because there is not enough scientists debunking him. Unexplained phenomenon will never be 100% accurate Bananas21ca 00:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete – The phrase "...although no reliable testimonies have been published." sums it up. —« ANIMUM » 00:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) What you have quoted refers to the 'healings' in relation to the subject. This AfD is about the article, not about whether or not the claims made by the subject are true. the_undertow ^talk 00:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I see a deletion in your future. Most of the sources seem to be the medium's website. The fact that it even states its own unverifiability is definitely the icing on the cake here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the number of sources discovered below. Hey, I'm no psychic, I was bound to make an erroneous prediction. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, being a psychic wouldn't have given you a better chance of success, just more skill at rationalizing your error into having been correct in the first place, only that you were misinterpreted.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 18:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep ABC News, this book, and this book are enough to show notability. the_undertow ^talk 00:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this needs major work, but the guy is obviously notable. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. seams notable to me. Callelinea 03:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; that malignant crook is, sadly, notable. — Coren ^(talk) 04:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A notable fraud. Needs to be monitored for NPOV.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 05:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per undertow's links - they establish notability Corpx 05:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. No reason to delete him, due to the coverage. Yeah, he's a fraud, but that alone makes him pretty notable - if only in a back-handed way. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - meets WP:RS and WP:N. He may be is a fraud, but that doesn't automatically make him "not notable" - many notable individuals were/are frauds (which is itself a POV, I suppose). -- MarcoTolo 16:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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.