Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clayton Jennings

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. Consensus is that the subject does not meet our notability standards since the sourcing is inadequate. This is not a reflection on the veracity of any controversy that the subject is involved in. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Clayton Jennings

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Clayton Jennings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does this merely scratch the surface of notability? This is some preacher who barely got any coverage before he was being, you know, accused of doing, you know, things with other people's bodies. As valereee, put it, "He's literally in the MIDDLE of the biggest news of his life and it's getting coverage only in ChristianPost.com and CharismaNews.com and GospelHerald.com". That's a good argument for deletion: lack of coverage of the subject in reliable sources. What we have now is a subject about whom nothing can be written except for negative BLP information, and that from sources which are themselves hardly acceptable. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: Yep. The sources here are weak sauce. There's no reason we need this article in the encyclopedia. No WP:SIGCOV, basically a WP:SINGLEEVENT situation too. Marquardtika (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: I have been editing this page once the edit warring started. Aside from a few small mentions in Christian news sources and a whole lot of mentions in blogs, I can't find much. Currently, it seems to be a place for the man's fans to come and expound on his greatness and his critics to try to make his transgressions as bad as possible. Nothing is being posted that shows much notability besides this controversy and a couple of tours he had. It should be deleted. I've tried to find some more notable subjects that this subject could be mentioned in. There is a connection to Tim Tebow, and maybe the rapper NF. The blogger JD Hall that has been mentioned and deleted a few times on this page would be a more notable subject Gospelforhawaii (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. In its current form, close to speedy delete as an attack page. StAnselm (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete He does seem to have a following, but the notability seems to be within a very small community. --valereee (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Not sufficiently notable as an evangelist, and thus the "nasty stuff about a non-notable person" does not make the person notable. Collect (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shardware99 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with User:Collect's reasons. SJK (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete -- Another NN cleric who has misbehaved. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. I would keep it if it were my choice, but we have deleted articles of far more notable, dangerous, and heinous persons. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per BLP1E and very poor sourcing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, BLP1E problems.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2019 (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.