Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mose Jones Jr.

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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK to userify, if desired. He might conceivably get elected to the legislature DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mose Jones Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable political lacking non-trivial coverage. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N, and WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Page Mose Jones Jr should not be deleted but considered. I have provided all need references from GNEWS GNEWSPAPER and others. Mose Jones Jr is a notable politicians. Several books have been written about him Historywiki11 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The references are not even close to being non-trivial. I see no evidence that there have been multiple non-trivial books written about him. reddogsix (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Highest office held appears to be a county commissioner, and no other notable achievements. And the article itself is almost bad enough on WP:NPOV grounds (purple prose, emotional wording, descriptions of his motivations and personal struggle, etc.) to merit WP:TNT. DMacks (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable politician with only passing mentions in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think it should be deleted. Will try again when i have more proof of significance Historywiki11 (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Historywiki11: You may be able to ask an admin to move the contents of the article to a draft or your user sandbox, so you don't lose all your progress. Also, if you work on it as a draft, you can use the Articles for Creation process and reviewers can make sure that the article fits Wikipedia article requirements before publishing. Appable (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it doesn't meet notability or neutrality policy at this time. However, this appears to be a perfect use case for the incubation deletion alternative. Draftify — main contributor appears willing to continue working on the article and fix the issues raised in this discussion. .Appable (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given it looks as if notability is in question, I would suggest not drafting this, but rather sandboxing it. reddogsix (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's another good alternative, assuming User:Historywiki11 still intends to continuing finding sources to prove the notability of the subject. Appable (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes i intend to find more sources Historywiki11 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The content can be updated to show more neutral writing of information and the picture updated. I believe the page should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mssjnsapril (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC) — Mssjnsapril (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The issues you cite are not the problem. Please re-read the comment at the top of the page. reddogsix (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable politician. -- Dane ^talk 19:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2016 (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.