Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jenkins (Unification Church) (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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jenkins (Unification Church)

Not notable. No significant, independent, reliable coverage cited in article. In the six months since this article's original nomination, none of the WP:RSes whose existence were asserted in that first AfD have eventuated. Although he is apparently the president of the Unification Church of the United States (although the cited source only says "Moon's top church official in North America"), his notability in that position is apparently so slight that (as of time of nomination) he is not even mentioned in that article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is another of those "person with a job" articles. It also should be added the the president of the Unification Church has more of a role as a public relations type person rather than executive or administrative responsibilities. This is not made clear in the article. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nomination rationale is largely WP:DEADLINE. I will look at the article again, but I'm still inclined to stick by my keep vote in the first AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gene93k, I would suggest that you read WP:DEADLINE more closely. It also states a view that: "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." This would seem to work against this article existing at this point. And I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect that, if any purported RSes that were raised in an AfD had any significance, and were going to be added into the article, that this would have occured well before six months were up. As to your 'keep' vote in the first AfD, it was simply WP:GOOGLEHITS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notablity and no sources to prove otherside. Tgreach (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want to vote on the article about a personal friend. However Mike has, and does play an important role, and yes it is in part a PR role, in the process which moved the Unification Church to more normal relations with mainstream American society. However the story has not been written up yet, even by church sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unification Church of the United States ~~and mention Jenkins in the Unification Church#Future church leadership section~~. His job is a pretty notable one, but I don't see any media coverage right now of what he's done in his job (as Steve Dufour says, it hasn't been written up yet in any good sources) so there's not much to make an article out of, but he's notable enough that his name should at least exist as a redirect. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: why redirect to Unification Church, rather than Unification Church of the United States? It also seems unlikely, given the small size of the US church, relative to the South Korean branch, that an American would assume "Future church leadership" of the worldwide church (plus we'd need a WP:RS for such a speculation) -- so mentioning him in that section would seem problematic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. Sorry, I hadn't noticed that there was a separate article just for the church in the US. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even the snippets available at Google News show Jenkins' position and role cited by plenty of reliable sources over the years. Nomination shows no evidence of having attempted to satisfy WP:BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: these WP:GOOGLEHITS seem to be simply for Jenkins acting as a spokesman for the UC, not coverage on him. WP:BEFORE has been met. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is inapplicable; the argument is regarding the quality of the Google news sources, not simply the number of hits. I've added a couple of the freely accessible ones and essentially doubled the article's coverage. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person, as the leader of a significant religion, is worthy of note in a stand-alone article. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As was mentioned above Mr. Jenkins is not the leader of the American Unification Church. He doesn't make decisions or tell people what to do.Northwestgnome (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added several independent RS citations to the article--unfortunately, several of them are not freely available on the web, but all are described adequately that any major library should be able to locate them. I'd appreciate it if the delete !voters could reexamine the article, let me know if it meets WP:HEY and, if not, what additional demonstration of notability would be needed. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the references provided in Michael_Jenkins_(Unification_Church)#References indicate sufficient coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of his notability per the general notability guideline. John254 22:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Noatable and sources exist - the rest is clean-up. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 30 December 2008 (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.