Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Jay Roberts

Cecil Jay Roberts

Cecil Jay Roberts (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)

His ministry work does not appear notable, and his musical work does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC. As such, the individual does not appear to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article at this time DP 01:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Notability (music):

• Wikipedia:Notability "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Cecil_Jay_Roberts
• Wikipedia:Notability (people) Meets neither the basic nor additional criteria
• Wikipedia:Notability (music) Meets none of the criteria

At best, Wikipedia:Too soon JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: Per JoeSperrazza. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Can the article be moved back to AfC? It was moved by the article creator Cowhen1966 before completing the process. Moving it back would allow the article to be worked on. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 02:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Procedurally, I don't know. However, there does seem to be a pretty obvious WP:COI for the author regarding this article. See [1]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither do I, but there's no precedent, so I don't see why this can't be withdrawn, the page CSDed as housekeeping (G6 (pending a discussion here)) and place it back into AfC. Maybe we should ask an Admin first, though. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

On another thought, can't we vote here to get that rationale? MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

We could, I guess. I would NOT propose to put it back into AFC, rather to simply Delete, for these reasons:

1. It is pretty obviously an autobiography.
2. There were many instances of the sources (those that were available for review) not supporting the text in the article. I corrected or elided that text, as appropriate. At best, there's a serious WP:CIR problem.
3. The WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of the author (not the least of which was tagging an article as a Review that he found an editor who had edited this article had contributed to.
4. Finally, Cowhen1966 asserts that he did not originate the article ([2] "I did not edit the beginning of the article. Check the history!"), although the history ([3]) says otherwise ([4]). He's either confused or dissembling. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete or return to AfC per other users. Agreed, it's still a delete for me. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Return to AfC. Lots of work needed, but I haven't seen a solid reason to delete yet.--Auric talk 02:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Return to AfC - I think it needs a lot work, but with more independent reliable sources I can see the article being notable. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 02:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I will be brief because whoever will make the final decision will I am sure look at all the facts, correspondence between parties etc. these can be found on both the talk page for the article created (Cecil Jay Roberts). There are also loads of contributors history, etc. tracing right back to when the article was created. It is important to mention that an editor by the name Wgolf removed the current template at the very beginning. But has since then been subject to countless edits etc. the article has lost shape and from as a result of these actions some of which have left me slightly overwhelmed. The question of notability was initially addressed with regards to the subject's presence on Christian tv. Etc. books by Sutherland and have all been used as references among other things. I have sought to address the individual's notability spanning across various decades right from birth till date. I believe as it stands now, All relevant sources have been edited out. All traces of his role as a pastor and tele-evangelist have also been edited out. This was due to numerous threats and edits flying from all quarters save a few helpers. I do not know why this has been my experience but if the original article is to be retrieved I believe. Cleare picture will be seen. Again, contrary to Sperrazza's comments, I do not have a conflict of interest in this article. I am just a perfectionist and this would have been the first of a series of articles that I was going to seek to write about. Within the Christian arena there is something called the gospel and here in the uk this pastor seems to have spearheaded this move via his tele-evangelist programme. I also checked Faith TV for the individual's name on their listings but could not find it. That is why I quoted a website that talked about the program. The reason why I was not overly concerned and looked for another source is because there are other Christian networks who do not provide all of their programme schedule. That oes not mean that I have conflict of interest. As for the personal comments by Mr Scorch about me being ...? I will not hold it against him. I do however hold my hand out to you Sinteku. I now knw what you meant when you said to move the article. Sorry if I misunderstood! Anyway, I cannot promise you that I will be the next J K Rawlings, but what I o know s that I am here to make Wikipedia a place where we can all be proud of. So yes, Sinteku, why not? Let's get back to bing Wikipedians! ThanksCowhen1966 (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)