Mike Schmitz (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Following the AfD (January 2018), Schmitz's notoriety has accelerated. Here are some mentions which have arisen since the AfD:

• The Wall Street Journal (February 2018): "Fr. Mike Schmitz, who heads Catholic Campus Ministry at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, doesn't think..."
• Don't Be Afraid to Say Yes to God! (April 2018): a book written by Pope Francis and annotated by Fr Mike Schmitz, a "highly sought-after national speaker"
• The Catholic Spirit (October 2018): "Father Schmitz has gained widespread attention with his catechetical videos conducted in a casual style from his living room."
• Catholic News Service (June 2018): Schmitz's most recent book is reviewed next to another by James Martin
• National Catholic Register (August 2018): Schmitz's most recent book is reviewed, and his views are explained
• The Irish Catholic (January 2019): "Some of the brightest and best Catholic speakers from across the globe featured, including Fr Mike Schmitz, Dr Scott Hahn"
• Crux (February 2019): Among the speakers were "Mike Schmitz, director of youth and young adult ministry for the Diocese of Duluth, Minnesota"

There seems to be a lot more as well. Certainly there's not enough to write an FA on Schmitz, but at least he passes the GNG. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but allow a draft/recreation A poorly attended AfD. Upon review of the sources presented I'm still not convinced WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR is satisfied because several of those are mere mentions and I can't tell which ones are reliable or independent given the specialised nature of the publications mentioned above, but I don't have any issue with trying to write a new draft. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreate as draft. The AfD was under-participated enough, and none of the more severe content issues were raised, that it really doesn't need to come to DRV to recreate, IMO. Independence of the new sources will need to be demonstrated, but that can be done after some time in draft space. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreate as draft. I probably would have relisted the AfD instead of closing it, but the actual close isn't unreasonable. More to the point, as always, if additional information comes to light after an AfD, an article can always be recreated. Writing a new draft would be a good way to get some input on the quality of the new sources. I wouldn't have any objection to it being re-created in mainspace, and if somebody didn't like the new sources, they can always being it back to AfD. As a practical matter, if it's re-created in mainspace and shot down again at AfD, you'll find it much more difficult to get people to accept a third attempt. Trying it out in draft space will get you some review in a less pressurized environment. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreate as draft, noting that there is no prejudice against acceptance because of the AFD. This may be the same as changing the result to a Soft Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it'd be fine to recreate as a draft. Killiondude (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreate as draft per discussion above. Just Chilling (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]