Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vendyl Jones

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. --Core desat 07:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vendyl Jones

Only current sources consist of the subject's own (partisan) web site, an arguably partisan news source, and a blog. Sourcing doesn't meet the stringent criteria required by WP:BLP Shirahadasha 23:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. --Shirahadasha 23:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Vendyl Jones is extremely notable, with over 12,000 Google hits to his name (and I doubt that any of those hits are referring to a different "Vendyl Jones"!). It's true that the article lacks substantial sources, but that can be resolved easily. In fact, a cursory browse through the first couple of Google hits yields this BBC article, which is as substantial as it gets. --DLand ^TALK 00:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Passes the "oh I know that dude" test. Seriously, lots of exposure. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 00:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean it up and add a few references. Notability assertion is that he claims to have inspired Indiana Jones, and that's really about it, other than that he's a biblical scholar. But the Ghits test does it for me - lotsa stuff on him. --Dennisthe2 00:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article could use cleanup but he appears notable from the bountiful articles on him. Just a perusal: BBC News, Orthodox Union, Arutz Sheva, Popular Mechanics, Israel News Radio, Time, a documentary in IMDB, The Biblical Archaeologist, Coast to Coast. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can't vote to delete only because of weak references. There are more than 10000 webpage which includes his name[1]. We can put unreferenced tag on it and improve it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I felt constrained to nominate this article for deletion by WP:BLP, because my search showed a haystack of private web sites and because the article involved potentially controversial claims. If this nom has resulted in people who know more than i do about the subject coming up with reliable sources to make the article's claims clearly established, then it has done its job every bit as much as if it had ended in a deletion. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, that's unacceptable as an a priori approach, but you're correct in your observation that an AfD helps to jumpstart the cleanup process. --DLand ^TALK 16:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Shuki 19:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep appears to have some notability--Sefringle 06:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.