Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Prince


 * 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   delete. Courcelles 00:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesse Prince

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable ex-Scientologist.

Yes, I know Scientology is evil and all that, but that doesn't justify this BLP. Prince, like many apostates, has been outspoken and quoted by critical sources. His criticism may be fair enough to cite in the appropriate articles (although there's plenty critics to choose from) but there is nothing here that meets our standards for a bio. (Oh except Scientology is evil - but see WP:NOTSOAP.) Scott Mac 23:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Scott, "apostate" is a term of derision often used by academics of questionable reputation re the people who have left "new religious movements." I don't know if you intended to use it that way.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also, fails WP:GNG as lacking several good sources about the person, as opposed to a failed lawsuit. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see evidence that he is a notable critic. There a quite a few Scientologists who are ex-Cos, which are interviewed as critics in The Secrets of Scientology for instance. I don't think they should have individual wiki pages per WP:BLP1E. (Calling them apostates is a little silly if not a BLP violation, by the way. Given the tone of Scott's overall post, I assume he's being sarcastic.) Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also not clear to me how a hung jury equals acquittal (as stated in this article), but given the scarcity of sources on this, it will probably remain a mystery. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Jesse Prince is Notable since he "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Anyone can verify this.  Put "Jesse Prince" scientology in the search engine of your choice.  Google news archive picks up 20 stories.  There are many more in the newspapers of Tampa and St. Petersburg.  I do agree that the page needs considerable work, but that's no reason to delete (unless the subject wants it deleted).  Keith Henson (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, quotes that mention her accusations. Pretty skimpy on Biographical info. We need more than people being quoted to write a WP:BIO The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No evidence of notability to the standards needed for a personal bio.Griswaldo (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2011 (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.