Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early life of Jim Jones


 * 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 merge to Jim Jones. Consensus here, after 2 relists, is that the content of this article should be merged into the primary article on Jim Jones. Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Early life of Jim Jones

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Should be deleted or merged into the main Jim Jones article Gtag10 (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge back I don't think this split was needed. Reywas92Talk 02:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge: I think that, while long, it does not deserve its own article. Asparagusus   (interaction)  02:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Don't merge The content was split out at my suggestion in order to reduce the length of the main article and use summary style per FA requirements. There is still no space for most of the content in the main article (which is still probably too long to pass FAC). If this article should be deleted, it's because the details are excessive to the point of being unencyclopedic/intricate detail. I have no opinion whether this is the case. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Prefer to Keep If not, I prefer to delete and not merge. The main article is already well above size limit recommended by WP:Length. Early life sub articles are common on biographies of prominent figures, eg Early life and career of Abraham Lincoln, Early life and career of Thomas Jefferson, Early life of Marcus Aurelius, Early life of Isaac Newton, Early life of Samuel Johnson, Early life of William Wordsworth, Early life of John Milton, etc, etc, etc. This is common practice for splitting lengthy biographies into sub articles. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk &#124; Contribs) 12:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the ultimate OSE to say that because other more famous people have subarticles (which are long than this one) that this one should have a subarticle. No one denies the concept of subarticles, but the main article is just 61kb and this one remains quite duplicative of what remains in the main article as well. Reywas92Talk 00:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am ok with deleting this if that is consensus. But main article is over 10,000 words in the body, which is over the recommended length per WP:Length. I do not think we should merge the content back in. I do think the content is useful though, and would prefer to see it kept. Jim Jones is not a minor historical figure. There are more documentaries and books on his life than most of the aforementioned (Lincoln and Jefferson excluded) Jim Jones is one of the most wrote about figures in American history, and his early life is critical to the formation of his ideology. So it is a noteworthy topic, IMO. Cheers! &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk &#124; Contribs) 14:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also - just want to point out. The Early Life section of the main article is the only section of the main article which will no longer have a sub-article when this is merged back in. The main article presently has five sub article. I also point out that merging this back in would go against the recommendation of peer review, the FAC review, and the GA review of this article. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk &#124; Contribs) 16:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion,  and Indiana. Skynxnex (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge all (and only) pertinent information into main article. Trillfendi (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge into Jim Jones, in agreement with the nominator and others that a separate article is excessive. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.