Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brother Jim


 * 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America1000 23:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Brother Jim

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have proposed deletion because this article is about an individual who fails to meet WP:GNG. The vast majority of the article is about non-notable events in a non-notable person; and is un-sourced, written with a non-neutral POV. The only sources listed is about a general lawsuit that has no notoriety. Five of the sources about the one case are broken links that cannot be verified. The only remaining source is a student paper. A Google search on the individual turns up personal webpages and social media sites GuyWhoLikesToHaveFun (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Creating deletion discussion for Brother Jim
 * weak keep The problem is there are few good indepth sources of coverage. However reliable sources can be found to cover him for years. The article is not good at present, and will take work to make useful, but I think he pases notability. I just found info on a 3rd federal law suit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment -- This article has the feel of an ATTACK article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:07, 2 February 2017 (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.