Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry R. Jackson, Jr.


 * 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. ( X! ·  talk )  · @450  · 09:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced biographical article about a pastor at a NN church. No independent sources to indicate notability. Large section of unreferenced claims and accusations in contravention of WP:BLP, plus other sections evidently placed by an editor with a WP:COI both make the article extremely unreliable. I42 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely convinced the subject is notable; the interview in Christianity Today alone suffices, the media presence merely gilds the lily. However, the article is repeatedly attracting unbalanced and inappropriate editing, both pro- and anti- the subject.  A well written article would be better and probably more stable.  I've just gone through and axed the worst of the BLP violations, as Bjweeks did a couple weeks ago.  Given the notability, we should have an article, thus keep.  Given the poor state of the current article and its history, if consensus has changed without my awareness to allow deletion on the grounds of failure to maintain a BLP compliant article I'd support deletion on that basis.  But I doubt consensus has changed that much, so I think current policies call for keeping.  GRBerry 13:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per GRBerry above. The subject seems to be a rather controversial subject, and seems to attract a lot of detractors/vandalism, which also seems to indicate at least a kind of public awareness. I too would support deletion if the difficulty of keeping a BLP compliant were grounds for deletion, but don't remember that being the case. Some level of locking on the article would probably do much the same thing. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I semi'd the article. BJ Talk 15:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve this poorly referenced and sourced article. Notability does seem established.  Springnuts (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2009 (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.