Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Williams (Anti-semitic Christian Identity preacher)


 * 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 of the debate was (after filtering out the voice of everybody who sounded like a fanatic) no consensus. But I will be moving the article to a better title and re-listing. — Feb. 28, '06 [11:52] 

Jonathan Williams (Anti-semitic Christian Identity preacher)
I tried to tidy this page up but it still reads very much as a POV essay - and it's possibly a vanity article, too. I honestly don't see how this guy is notable, and in the unlikely event that there is an article to be written about him, this isn't it. XYaAsehShalomX 19:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC) The info is derived for the most part from their own website! www.twelvearyannations.com Every time I have ever tried to share knowledge on this site concerning haters in the world, it is deleted. I follow all of the guidelines. I don't understand? All of what is being said can be proven by all resources available.
 * Delete... even the title is POV... This guy doesn't meet WP:BIO. I'd say merge to Christian Identity if anyone cares about the content, but don't even bother with a redirect on this page name.--Isotope23 19:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 *  This article is accurate, as it is written by a concerned resident of the state of Georgia. Myself. I am only trying to make people aware of these wolves in sheep's clothing!
 * The reason it keeps getting deleted is that there is nothing in the article that asserts that he is notable. Church of Jesus Christ-Christian is just barely notable enough for an article since it seems they are an extreme minority group with very little large-scale influence.  But the individual pastors aren't notable enough for their own articles.  And the fact that you admittedly wrote the article with an objective ("to make ppl aware of these wolves in sheep's clothing) means it is POV.  Your anti-racist objectives are wonderful, and I hope you continue that fight, because God knows we need it, but this is not the forum for this particular battle. You might considering mentioning consider mentioning him in the church article. --Esprit15d 21:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please keep your personal vendettas to your blog. Encyclopedias are meant to hold objective, impartial and worthy information. It isn't the job of any encyclopedia to serve as a vehicle to shamefull vendettas and persecutions. And let me inform you that if you keep creating articles like this one, then wikipedia's users will keep on deleting them. --Mecanismo | Talk 20:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, you could try a little WP:CIVIL there Mecanismo, and refrain from WP:BITE...--Isotope23 20:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not biting any newbie. The alledged author of that article said himself that he wrote that article and is maintaining it because he wants to attack the said person and drag his name through the mud. People who try to use an open encyclopedia to slander someone need to be warned about their actions, newbie or not. --Mecanismo | Talk 23:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hiya :) Don't take this too badly - it's not you.

Exposing fascists is a great thing to do and I thoughroughly approve, but since this is meant to be an encyclopedia, written in a neutral style, it's better to simply describe the subject of the article rather than write your own opinions - and I've made this mistake before in the past so it's nothing worry about.

In addition, he simply isn't well, important enough to the public, to write an article about, or at least I can't see any evidence of it, even if the article is accurate (which it probably is). Should this change in the future (G-d forbid) then we can rewrite the article. :) XYaAsehShalomX 20:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002053676_webaryan04.html http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/12/1723229_comment.php http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4186/is_20041003/ai_n11707824 Now tell me it is not worth creating a page!!!
 * Delete non-notable, POV, pet project, personal vendetta. It's a shame that wikipedia holds such articles. --Mecanismo | Talk 20:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment to Author, what XYaAsehShalomX has said is right on the money. This is an encyclopedia and it is not the correct place to "make people aware of these wolves in sheep's clothing" even if your intentions are good.  I suggest maybe you get a blog, or some free webspace to post your material and any arguments against Mr. Williams.  Hopefully XYaAsehShalomX is right and Williams will continue to be such an unimportant fringe element that he will never qualify for an article.  I applaud the sentiment behind what you are doing, but this just isn't the right place for it.  I hope you understand.--Isotope23 20:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no difference in what I have posted, and the other stuff posted about White supremacists! This Williams individual is local for me, and he makes the news nationally all of the time. I understand, but then again I don't. It seems to me EVERY article is biased in some sort of fashion, and mine just tells precisely what is widely known around the southeast. The public deserves to be able to read about figures of all backgrounds for research, including these unwanted ones. Clean it up if you wish, but I don't see how deletion is absolutely necessary. But I am sure it will get deleted anyway...
 * Can you cite an example of what you are stating? Perhaps a link to national news article about Williams?--Isotope23 21:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. For wikipedia, the most important fact for people is notablity. If he is a national figure with national (even world) impact, that needs to be put in the article to survive.  Like you refer to his radio show.  What show?  Is it big? This would be an example of notability.--Esprit15d 22:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV --Esprit15d 21:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Here are some new articles to back this up : http://www.rickross.com/reference/aryan/aryan77.html
 * two repeated articles from a newspaper, an article from an obscure hate group site and an article from a news site which publishes anyone's articles . That isn't exactly strong proof, is it? --Mecanismo | Talk 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Can someone provide documentation of his radio show's existence? Then we at least could consider whether to keep him based on notability as a radio host, rather than arguing whether enough media mentions are found to make the anonymous poster's controversy notable.  Currently the only source (before addition of the above links during an edit conflict, so I haven't checked them) is the website of one hategroup, which doesn't really do anything to substantiate claims of notoriety for this individual.  See WP:RS.  Barno 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per media mention, but move to a NPOV title. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete individual churches are not per se notable and neither are their pastors no matter how outré their beliefs may be. Carlossuarez46 00:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable church leader/superior, but move to a NPOV title. Stifle 13:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Retitle and clean up. The fact that this guy is "Communications Director" of Aryan Nations (or at least he was in 2004) makes him just notable enough for inclusion, IMO. But the article is still highly POV, un-encyclopedic in tone, and lacking in sourced statements. --Dcfleck 16:56, 26 February 2006 (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.