Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas Clark


 * 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. Wizardman 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Jonas Clark

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

delete – This article is off to a bad start. It survived a prod without meaningfully addressing the notability concern. The article is promotional and overly sympathetic in nature because its single editor is a key member of the organization. Most or all of the "Ministerial" section is copyvio material from a book. The key claims to notability are as founder of an organization and author of twelve books. The organization may or may not be notable (most on-topic Google hits are book promotions or the organization's own press releases); if it is notable, then an article on Spirit of Life Ministries would be more appropriate. Most or all of the twelve books are self published, which eliminates that particular claim to notability. Finally, Wikipedia is not demanding this article in the form of internal links to it; that is, as of yet there is no internal indication of notability. Because of the conflict of interest problems and dubious notability I think this article should be deleted. An article about the organization may be appropriate if neutral editors deem it so. Once deleted, the article should be recreated as a redirect to Clark University, whose founder is presumably a significantly more notable individual. ✤ JonHarder talk 14:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

delete - I'd like a neutral article on this person to get some factual information but the author of the article is an apparently an employee wp:coi, it's not sourced at all by reliable citations. I tried to clean it up but without some neutral sources it's a loosing battle. It still reads a little like a promotional piece. I'll go re-read WP:SPS. And what I found was "Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if:" "3. it is not unduly self-serving," "7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.". Here's a couple searches I tried for other references: nada from find articles, nada,and nada. Faradayplank (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:54, 23 June 2008 (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.