Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James F. Jones (2nd nomination)


 * 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. JodyBtalk 13:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

James F. Jones
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Speedy-delete-tagged as attack page, but see Talk:James F. Jones. Should the article be reverted to as at 20:26, 11 January 2015? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Remove slander, add in-line referenced info about an accomplished scholar and academic administrator.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * delete this biography of a living person and start over. This person is notable but slanderous content as well as implied wrongdoing based on limited evidence such as the ranking of Trinity before and after his tenure as president is original research puts Wikipedia at risk.  Criticisms should be referenced in reliable 3rd party sources and not simply implied.  RadioFan (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP Subject is regularly in the news. Any items which are not properly referenced can be removed. User:roberto incognito — Preceding undated comment added 13:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment recent removal of OR and potentially libelous content have resolved issues with content in the article, however an admin should clean out history prior to this edit. RadioFan (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP Subject is currently in the news, and the criticisms are well referenced. Any future items which are not properly referenced should be removed. Doug (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP but revise. News coverage of him presiding over the suicide of a 114 year old college argues for notability. But revision needed for chronological order, and for selection of what is encyclopedia-worthy and what is not. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  17:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep with changes and Semi-Protect The subject is clearly very notable, but the extent of the BLP violations that are being introduced by vandals is not acceptable.  I have made attempts to clean up this article in the past, but it a number of ip editors with grudges against this person (this is a given considering his controversial status) have reintroduced it. Winner 42  Talk to me!  21:55, 6 March 2015 (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.