Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John E. Barr (Jehovah's Witnesses) (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   delete. Consensus seems to go towards delete because of the lack of independent sources. — GorillaWarfare talk 18:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

John E. Barr (Jehovah's Witnesses)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

No independent sources. Fails WP:BIO. (Re-listing as script appears to not have run properly) Jeffro 77  (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You could have just applied the notice to the article, rather than doing everything all over again with a second discussion. It would have taken you five fewer edits. Uncle G (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure if there were any other steps that were not properly completed by the Twinkle script.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, now I have three notifications on my discussionpage. A wast of space.--Rodejong (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The one duplicate notification may have been a waste of space, and I'm sorry for the minor inconvenience as a result of the script not running properly. The other two notification were an entirely valid part of the process. However, you waited more than 7 days before complaining about the PROD template, so technically the article could already have been deleted. -- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Two points: (1) Prods can be contested at any time, even after deletion. (2) Rodejon contested the Prod here, just one day after it was Prodded, not 7 days. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice his first contestation. In any case, I didn't raise the initial PROD which is not directly related to this AfD. Can we return to normal programming now?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone explain how "space" is being wasted by notifying an interested party? What is this space that is being wasted and how is it consumed? BlackCab (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of notability outside Jehovah's Witness publications. Barr was a member of the religion's Governing Body, which is effectively the originator of all articles in Jehovah's Witness publications. None of those are therefore sources independent of the subject. And blogs and forums are not acceptable as a reliable, verifiable source. If the outside world hasn't noticed him, he ain't worth including. BlackCab (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- I have no time for Jehovah's Witnesses, but they are a significnat movement. I suspect that being one of seven members of their governing council is notable.  Nevertheless, the article is currently only a poor stub.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Other members of the Governing Body do not typically have their own articles, except if they have held a notable position, such as president of their primary corporation. Other members of the GB are typically redirected to Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. JW literature does not typically provide more coverage of GB members than it does of other full-time preaching members about whom it publishes 'life story' articles, who are not notable according to Wikipedia's criteria for articles about people.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)