Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel R. Jennings


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Daniel R. Jennings
Appears to be an article about a non-notable person. Google doesn't show much on the individual either, and it almost seems like an attempt to legitimize the individuals work/business. Locke Cole 17:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. It's worth noting that the article also seems to be written by the subject himself (User:Revdanj). - Locke Cole 17:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No claim to notability (other than speaking with God, which is unverifiable).  --A D Monroe III 18:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it verifiable that he has not spoken with God? You keep speaking of notability and your basing this on a Google search?! A google search for Daniel R. Jennings gives 2,040,000 results, but I'm sure you checked them all to verify that this Daniel R. Jennings was not one of 2,040,000. How would a Google search justify notability for ordinary people with common names such as us?  Perhaps if we were thieves from Final fantasy 6 our namesakes alone would justify notability. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.8 (talk • contribs)
 * A search for "Daniel R. Jennings" returns 238 hits, of which seemingly 0 speak of the person being discussed in the article (no, I did not check each and every one, I did however run variations of the query with other keywords from the article to try and find relevant or notable info). Also, please read WP:CIV and WP:NPA-- making fun of my name isn't the way towards civilized discourse. -Locke Cole 20:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete no claim to notability. why don't you just make this into a user page?--Alhutch 19:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do not understand why people keep saying that Daniel Jennings is not notable. He has preached in three countries and is currently working to organize a crusade in Torreon, Mexico with the Protestant Allianza.  In three weeks his newest book will be advertised in Charisma Magazine which has an estimated readership of over 500,000.  What does it take to be notable?  I believe that there are some ulterior motives at work here.  Locke Cole for some reason seems to be on a personal crusade against this wikipedia entry.  So, let’s look at Locke Cole.  Locke Cole takes his name from a Final Fantasy VI video game character.  Anyone who has studied Final Fantasy knows that it is all based upon witchcraft and magic and very anti-Christian.  That’s just the truth of the matter.  Could it be that Locke Cole has targeted this website simply because its subject was a born-again Christian?  The website hadn’t been up for five hours before Locke Cole began his attack.  He didn’t even give me time to finish it to where I was satisfied with it before he was trying to have it deleted.  I would like to know why he was so quick to try and stop this website from going up.  And secondly, I would also like to know why a 25 year old man (Locke Cole according to a link from his user page) would put so much energy into this.  He even went to the extent of setting up a special section at his user page against this entry.  Why so much trouble?  It’s just a dictionary entry.  It’s not the end of the world if an international lecturer and author gets his name in wikipedia. Revdanj 20:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy very few Ghits on person or his company. Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  20:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanity and NN. - Sensor 20:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is simple autobiography, exhibiting all of the problems that autobiographies have, including:
 * comprising wholly non-neutral content;
 * containing details of hopes, aspirations, and thoughts that are completely unverifiable without being able to read the mind of the subject (and, indeed, that parallel the examples in vanity guidelines); and
 * not citing any sources and comprising large chunks of original research that has not been accepted into the corpus of human knowledge.
 * Research turns up no sources about this person, and even were the contents verifiable and not original research the only reasons given in the article and given above by the autobiographer for this person satisfying our criteria for inclusion of biographies are events that have not happened yet. Apart from creating Daniel R Jennings and Daniel Jennings,  has made no other contributions to the project whatsoever, so userfication is out.  (One has to do more than just create an account and write about oneself to earn the privilege of a user page.  Wikipedia is not a free user page hosting service.)  Delete. Uncle G 00:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn't it possible that with a book coming out in three weeks that people are going to want to know a little more about this person after the book goes up for sale and the advertising campaign starts? Wouldn't it be great if they could turn to Wikipedia and find information on this guy? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.111.232 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Content unverifiable. Chick Bowen 04:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN. Josh Parris # 06:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.51.174 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. User:164.106.51.174, who posted the vote above, has been vandalizing the userpages of people who voted to delete this article, including me, Sensor, A D Monroe III, and Josh Parris.  Chick Bowen 21:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that also vandalized the Locke Cole article, clearly mistaking the article for my userpage. -Locke Cole 23:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Another note on this ongoing drama; looks like he came back today from two new IP addresses and tried vandalizing the userpages of people who voted delete (as before): and . Both of those, like  dead-end at DanvilleCC-ROA.networkvirginia.net. --Locke Cole 22:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Normally, I would say userfy but with the amount of sock puppetry and vandalism, he does not deserve it. If he were a true Christian, he would trust in the Lord to guide Wikipedians to a correct decision. -- RHaworth 21:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, I didn't have anything to do with the vandalism and I am disappointed that someone would jump to the conclusion that I did that and even go to the point of saying that I was not a true Christian. I don't know who 164.106.51.174 is but it is not me.  At any rate I have lost all respect for Wikipedia.  The whole concept of Wikipedia turns it into nothing more than a site that allows gossip to be published as fact and popularity to be the determining factor in what is important and what is not. It is a sad commentary when a video game character is given more value than a human being who has achieved something that most have not. Revdanj 16:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * tracerts to DanvilleCC-ROA.networkvirginia.net. Your article claims you're back in Danville, Virginia. You're saying it's a coincidence that someone from the same town you live in (population: 48,411) came here and, of all the AfD noms to find users to vandalize, vandalized these specific user's pages that voted to delete this article? I'm no statistician, but something tells me the odds on that are pretty small. It seems a lot more likely that it was you. --Locke Cole 17:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate being accused of being the same person that this article is about or of being a vandal from Danville, VA. I am not in Danville so that proves that I didn't do it but since the person the article is about comes from Danville it would only make sense that he has supporters there. Secondly, it now seems obvious to me that you have been trying to get this article deleted without even reading it because the article clearly states IN THE FIRST LINE that this person is living in Oklahoma City. Do you care to explain why you are trying to delete something you have not even read?  Revdanj 09:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't appreciate it? Then why did you choose the username "Revdanj"? It's reasonable to assume that's short for "Reverand Dan Jennings". And if you're not the person the article is about, how come someone claiming to be married to him posts from the same IP address as you? As for the Oklahoma bit, the article says his business is in Oklahoma, it doesn't say he is in Oklahoma. The article ends with him returning to Danville, VA. I shouldn't even be feeding this obvious troll, but it gets tiring watching you talk about yourself in the third person (like we're all a bunch of clueless noobs who can't figure out you're writing about yourself). I should also note that your attacks on me are pretty pathetic for a "man of God". --Locke Cole 09:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment What people don't seem to understand is that Locke Cole or any of the other users who voted to delete this article doesn't have a personal vendetta against Daniel R. Jennings. We are following Wikipedia procedures and protocol for what is and is not notable. If you want to have this article be part of Wikipedia, you must follow the guidelines for notability of the Wikipedia community. If the article does not meet these guidelines, then it can't be part of Wikipedia. Feel free to post it on a site that provides free websites: there are many of these. We are not debating whether Daniel R. Jennings is a good person or whether he has done good things with his life and served God. We are debating whether or not he is notable enough by Wikipedia's standards (and no other standards, including personal merit) to have his own article. I think it is clear that he is not notable enough.--Alhutch 19:00, 9 November 2005 (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.