Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Letts


 * 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. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Jack Letts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person isn't notable and the article is full of BLP violations (claims by newspapers that are unproven). CommotioCerebri (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable individual with long term coverage. BLP issues, if present, should be addressed in article. Coverage is sustained, long lasting, and in good sources - e.g.:     .Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Snow keep Icewhiz is completely correct. When we see an article on a notable topic, which triggers a concern for us, but the problem is potentially fixable, policy compliant contributors know they should never jump to a nomination to delete.  Articles on notable topics should only be nominated for deletion if there is a record, on the talk page, that good faith contributors have worked hard to agree on a version of the article, and, after long effort, are hopelessly deadlocked.
 * I am calling for snow keep, because I know, for a certain fact, that Icewhiz's excellent point has been explained to nominator CommotioCerebri numerous times before. This nomination is an instance of WP:IDHT.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - The Jihadi Jack? I know he's no John but come on. I'm not going to even entertain this AFD with a thoughtful response. If the nom could not even glance at the coverage and impact surrounding this man, his statement has no ground to stand on.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW Keep - Per Icewhiz. Subject of the article is clearly notable, and has multiple reliable sources backing that up. Suggest close per WP:SNOW. – Miles Edgeworth Talk 17:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above. Artw (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep it as easily passes WP:GNG. Störm   (talk)  05:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW Keep Well-sourced article on patently notable individual.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:06, 26 October 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.