Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Jordan
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
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 Withdraw nomination, did a slightly different search and found a great many sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Leon Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apart from getting himself shot does not appear all that notable. Only 6 hits on Gnews in 1970 for the killing as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is not a shadow of a doubt that this article should be kept. As a three-term member of the Missouri General Assembly , Leon Jordan meets WP:POLITICIAN and nothing more needs to be said. In addition, he was the most powerful African-American politician in Missouri when he was assassinated over 40 years ago, and his murder is still unsolved and discussed by reliable sources decades later. It would be a travesty to delete this article which instead should be improved and expanded. His relatively common name just requires slightly better research skills. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's fairly well established that State representatives are likely notable, and there's a lot more to this bio than just that. I'm a little worried there needs to be more sourcing, but the subject itself is a keep. Shadowjams (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2012 (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.