Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Jackson
- 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: as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, verifiability is non-negotiable, and this article contains no reliable sources nor have those 'voting' keep attempted to claim there are any, delete. No merge/redirect to David Firth as it is apparently unverified that they are in fact the same person. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry Jackson[edit]
No reliable sources provided and no evidence of notablity. Hopelessly unencylopedic. The most notable thing about it is that it likely to be an alter ego of another guy who makes flash animations on the internet David Firth (who also has no reliable sources to established notability). - Motor (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete although David Firth actually has a large following following his salad fingers series. This article, however, is irellevant and any detail can be merged into the full david firth article. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 09:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom or merge with David Firth if a source can be found that they're the same person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!! You can't delete it! He is a very important web-animator. And is made possibly even more important by being an alter-ego of Dave Firthwho is an inredibly important Web-animator. He is important for many people and just because he isn't important to you doesn't mean you should delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydie86 (talk • contribs)
- Note: User has only 12 edits. Eight edits on standard articles are vandalism-related and were made on May 2, 2006; the remaining four edits are made on June 2, on AFD pages related to David Firth. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 20:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
I Agree, you obviously dont like it.. so what. He is extremely important, probably better than david firth. If people search for him why should there be no related article? Doesnt make sense, rather improve current page. I will create this again if you delete it! (not original creator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.177.72.66 (talk • contribs)
I advise that the Jerry Jackson entry should not be deleted. It is by far one of the most original web creations by an artist anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.27.0 (talk • contribs)
- Merge with David Firth if you must remove it. Although I think the article is amusing, I realize wikipedia is serious business to some people. PrettyMuchBryce 18:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can't see why this would be deleted and it has been already stated, we do not know if Jackson is Firth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.20.33 (talk • contribs)
- Keep Jerry Jackson is notable and deserves to stay. Héous 08:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP! I would like to see Wikipedia continue to be the best and first source for information on the Internet. So stop trying to bloody delete it!!
- Keep Honestly, it would be ridiculous to simply get rid of the page. It provides users with information on the animator, and if people even a single person has come here looking for information on him, then why would there be a need to get rid of the page? One should not delete the article simply because they find it unimportant, because that could be said about numerous articles on Wikipedia; it should be kept for those who visit the site, and actually want to read more about the animator. Having obscure articles like this is what makes Wikipedia so great! You can find information about new things all the time, and those who have knowledge on the topic can make contributions to the site by fixing/adding/removing information. Please don't limit the site, simply because this is unimportant in your own eyes - after all, I searched it, didn't I? Lastly, just for the record, Jerry Jackson is quite notable, and many people on Newgrounds know who he is. Whether or not they all like him doesn't matter, the fact is that it is not as if he is completely unknown. Sandwiches99 23:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you delete Ricky Gervais because you have a section titled The Office? Would you delete a secrtion on Mickey Mouse because you already have one on Pluto? Or Walt Disney. (A lengthier comment has been added to the even more ridiclous suggestion to delete David Firth)... - I dont know how to sign it in the Wikipedia way but I am Bob Slayer!
Jerry Jackson can not be deleted he must get a lot more visits than over pages on this website it is interesting because Jerry Jackson is orginal.If you delete Jerry Jackson because you have no prove he is real then you should delete all the stuff on the bible because have you got any proof that is real.
- Keep --DragonWR12LB 08:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, I nominated and this is just make sure my vote is clear. A joke article that is 100% original research with no basis for notability. - Motor (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2006 (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.