Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Allan Schaap

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Coredesat 01:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Allan Schaap

Jack Allan Schaap (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This subject is not-notable. A previous AfD on the article (then under the title Jack Schaap reached no consensus - but no-one was strongly arguing for notability. After WP:OTRS complaints from the subject, stating the article was unfair and requesting deletion, two OTRS ops deleted it as an A7. However, it has now been recreated, so I'm bringing it here for community permission to delete.

Let me be clear the primary reason for requesting deletion is the non(or marginal) notability of the subject - the contributing factor is the OTRS request. We have plenty of precedent for allowing that such a request is a factor to be considered in marginal cases.--Docg 09:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Nothing I can see in the article to make him stand out beyond any other pastor/vicar/priest/whatever. Emeraude 12:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • delete The only item of notability is the confessions, and that is not sourced well enough for BLP,and is furthermore only tangentially related to him. For a man of religion to persuade a sinner to confess is--I would assume--not notable. Otherwise he is no more notable than all the other ministers with DDs from the same unaccredited school. Attending an unaccredited religious college is not exactly notable. The subjects request should be honored --but I think the article is worthy of deletion even without that.22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)DGG
  • Delete per nom. Someone who has a poorly researched book does not make one notable. Delete and protect. Arbustoo 01:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, though I do not think that it should be protected. The guy seems to be fairly notable, since he was pictured in The Church Report [1] as pastor of this church. While I do not think that this current article is it, I think that a well-sourced article probably could be written about him. I also see no reason to honor the personal request if the sourcing is good. There are others listed here who are not thrilled about it. Fundamental Dan 20:19, 28 March 2007 (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.