Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Glass


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 07:06Z

Jack Glass

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

It does meet CSD G5, but rather than speedy delete because of the sheer content of this page, I am placing it here for discussion. I, however, abstain from voting. Ian ¹³ /t  16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The BBC refers to him as "one of Scotland's most controversial religious figures" (per the link in the article). - Richfife 16:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Established notability.  If page was created while user was banned, it doesn't seem malicious.  The article could use a cleanup, but couldn't we all? Mystache 17:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The content is probably out of proportion, but this is true of many such bios. DGG 03:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Everything is cited and the article seems fine. The person in question is of obvious note and the author is irrelevant. CDMS 09:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note On further examination I can't understand why the author, user:Dog cicero was blocked initially. CDMS 10:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this may have been the reason. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was mostly because of Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Cicero_Dog which proved the account was a sockpuppet master, and also general disruption (see block log) (e.g. Requests_for_adminship/Cicero_Dog and falsifying votes). You are welcome to contest the ban however. Ian ¹³  /t  14:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That was not . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.131.67 (talk • contribs) 16 April, 2007
 * The edits made and name do indicate a link. Especially due to the volume of sockpuppets Cicero Dog has made. You could request a checkuser or request for discussion at the admin noticeboard or similar, but this board is for discussion of the article and not the user. Ian ¹³  /t  07:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is established. However, not all the factual statements in the article are sourced, and if no sources can be found, they'll need to be removed under our WP:RS policies. EdJohnston 15:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup (e.g. "while he was still protesting against ecumenism and the sins of an increasingly ungodly generation...")  Eliminator JR Talk  19:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the comments above, don’t cut off your nose to spite your face. RFerreira 03:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above --Guinnog 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup; it meets the notability tests of WP:BIO, and the unsourced statements are not grounds for deletion, because the core of the article is verifiable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Johnbod 10:33, 18 April 2007 (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.