Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Berg


 * 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. Jujutacular (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Jim Berg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines Benjaminady (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

To wit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) requires " significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]"

BJU's Alumni Magazine "Voice of the Alumni" is not a secondary source, nor is BJU's own internet page about the net grace investigation, nor is "Biblical Viewpoint", a journal apparently published by BJU. None of these three are independent of the subject nor of each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminady (talk • contribs) 10:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Further, doesn't appear to meet criteria under notability in academics, found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) One guesses that the argument would be that he meets criteria 1, and apart from other difficulties with this, this clearly isn't demonstrated by independent reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminady (talk • contribs) 10:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - common name but it doesn't appear subject of this article meets GNG. I would argue this Jim Berg is more notable  —Мандичка YO 😜 12:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems odd to delete a 9-year-old article six months after the subject was criticized in a widely publicized report condemning his counseling techniques.--John Foxe (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete no coverage in independent sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS. Kraxler (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete — Coverage from an alumni magazine doesn't assert WP:NACADEMICS. Toffanin (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and the above editors. Searches revealed nothing (although they were difficult due to the common name) which meets either WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMICS.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoa, User:John Foxe's comment is quite a red flag. I think this merits a closer look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The information about the counseling "scandal" - as written up in this news article - is much much stronger than appears in the WP article. I would say that if this article is to remain the full extent of the report needs at least to be cited. LaMona (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple more quotations from the Greenville News article.--John Foxe (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That link actually worked. However, Berg gets all of a paragraph in it, and the "personnel action" is against Bob Jones III, not Berg.  There is a lot of institutional blame placed, but very little personal. MSJapan (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This article from the Columbia SC State, March 11, 2015 certainly gives Berg at least equal billing with Bob Jones III.


 * Keep Berg's position at the University, and public profile combine with coverage of the scandal to pass notability.  As User:LaMona says, article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:SENSATION "Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering..." Kraxler (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Kraxler, the article has been here since 2006 because he is a prominent churchman and university official. The scandal simply adds a reason not to take it down.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots of articles from 2006 are deleted nowadays. Back then, I created my first articles without adding any sources, and nobody found fault with it. Tempora mutantur et mutamus in eis Kraxler (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - I actually couldn't source the deanship to a non-personal source, but it's not a major university, so it doesn't matter anyway. Doesn't meet any other criteria, no independent coverage to meet GNG (despite being a dean for 20 years). As a note, the refs are a mess in general.  The "scandal" (according to the report) was actually an internal policies and procedures self-review done in 2013, three years after Berg had retired. It was a general problem at the institution, not just one person.  Thus, if it is to be written about, it belongs in the Bob Jones University article, not in a BLP. MSJapan (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Took me less than a minute to find this mention of Berg's position as Dean of Students in this 2014 Greenville News article: "They talked about feeling shame, depression, developing eating disorders because of the messages they heard in chapel, in classrooms, in dorm meetings, and most especially in counseling sessions with the man who was dean of students from 1981 until 2010, Jim Berg."--John Foxe (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Greenville News search on Berg: . E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete long-standing dean of school that draws media attention, string of books, gets invited to speak - I simply assumed that there would be sources. I was wrong.  Long career, significant job, but I can find little, essentially nothing.  The books sell, but they don't get reviewed or written about.  He speaks at Christian conferences that only get written up on local church announcement pages. And then they are the sex things.  A student, now trans, writes on a small website that he counseled her to trust Jesus, but she now feels - years later - that it was a repressive act.  That sort of thing and church announcements are  all I can find in searches limited to pre-2012.  What we can source is his involvement in the scandal around allegedly bad counseling given at Bob Jones to students who reported sexual abuse.  The problem is here: .  I did not follow this scandal and have not gone now to real all of the stories about it so correct me if I am wrong, but this July 2015 article says that: "Insufficient evidence exists to establish probable cause or prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bob Jones University employees failed to report knowledge of criminal sexual conduct against juvenile students, the Greenville City Police Department said Monday."   So what we are left with is a BLP about someone who has, as far as I can find, no sourceable notability apart form a single incident over which the authorities did not press charges.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a few more references. Though I agree that Berg is non-notable as an academic, the combination of his long career as BJU Dean of Students, his numerous books (popular in fundamentalist circles), and his connection with the G.R.A.C.E. report make him notable as a totality.--John Foxe (talk) 21:17, 2 September 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.