Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Franklin (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. (non-admin closure)  J 947  06:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Franklin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom . I nominated it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation since it was just a copy-and-paste from here but the CSD template was removed by the page's creator. The only real source is that page, which doesn't do a ton to establish notability and is obviously not impartial.  City O f  Silver  18:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak keep . A lot of this is still too promotional and in several instances, obscure prose is used with no explanation for non-expert readers. (To take two of many examples, the first two sentences of the second lede paragraph are inside baseball and the term "Mystery Machine" is used without any indication of what its origin is.) The entire article still carries a résumé-ish, pamphlet tone but the sourcing and text has been improved to the point that it's no longer a top-to-bottom violation of the promo and notability policies.  City O f  Silver  20:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I Hopefully fixed one of the inside-baseball parts. Regarding the tone: Given the AFD in progress I just wanted to get notability established, which results in the rather bullet-itemy flow. Once there's more time (hopefully), I'll take a crack at fleshing it further out into a proper treatment. Any feedback along the way would be most appreciated, as I hope to get more into content work. Thanks CoS! Crow  Caw  20:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing again to keep. I tried to get across that you cleared up the notability and sourcing problems and re-reading my comment, I don't know if I was a little bit harsh. My concerns with the writing are a distraction and on second thought, they're not relevant to a deletion discussion. The nom's primary concern was WP:BIO and at this point, I don't even see any way to debate whether that applies any more.  City O f  Silver  02:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Do the recent changes render the article compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines?
 * COMMENT I've re-written this article. Pinging all participants to evaluate and comment based on new state:  Crow  Caw  20:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep For the record, with the acknowledgement that I'm not impartial here. Crow  Caw  14:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: See 's relist comment above.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  18:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 March 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.