Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Luther King, Sr.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was - keep
Martin Luther King, Sr.[edit]
- Not very encyclopedic. Says nothing except that he has the same name as his son only the title is different. Does not have his birth year, death year, etc. that can make the article more useful. Georgia guy 02:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable even if he was King's father. Megan1967 02:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Strongest keep! Rev. King Sr. was also pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church, and apparently also a social activist. Author and subject of Daddy King: An Autobiography, published by a major commercial publisher in 1980, and subject of Not Only Dreamers: the story of Martin Luther King, Sr. and Martin Luther King, Jr., published by the Church of the Brethren press in 1986. Obviously highly notable and expandible. Samaritan 06:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Paul Robeson is a recent case of someone who, while highly notable on his own, might not be quite notable enough to warrant articles on his close relatives when they accomplished nothing notable in their own right. MLK, however, is definitely notable enough for his close relatives to qualify as notable by association. Everyking 12:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep that one. Grue 13:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. His widow is notable in her own right, but not his father. In practice the only case where close relatives become notable enough to warrant articles of their own merely by existing are children and wives of the President of the United States, but only because they are inevitably turned into minor celebrities in their own right by the media, like Chelsea Clinton or the Bush twins. Other relatives of the President only become notable if they get in trouble like Billy Carter or Roger Clinton. And in the case of anyone other than the US president there is no coattail effect at all. Note Bill Clinton's mother is not in Wikipedia, why should MLK's father be? He was a pastor and a decent man, but that's not enough. -- Curps 14:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No, that isn't enough, but being MLK's father means he has a certain level of notability and fame. Everyking 14:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- He's no more notable or famous than Bill Clinton's mother. A better case could be made for the father of Venus and Serena Williams, because he actually accomplished something notable in his own right by coaching his daughters his own unique and unorthodox way... and he's not in Wikipedia. MLK Sr. isn't notable merely for existing, that's absurd. -- Curps 14:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, what about an article such as Alois Hitler? It think that when people reach a certain level of fame, there is so much historical interest in them that their close relatives become notable merely by association. Everyking 16:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- A very well written article, but I suspect it never would have been written if not for the stories and rumors that Hitler's real name was Schickelgruber, that he might have Jewish ancestry, and the whole circumstance of him being Austrian by nationality rather than German. Rather than entitle an article as "Hitler's family origins" or whatnot, it's more convenient to create an article about his father and put it there. Well, if an article about MLK Sr. ever reaches that level I suppose its existence might be justified in a way, although it's not a promising start at all. -- Curps 18:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with Curps. Also Wikipedia is not genealogy or a memorial. Unless Martin Luther King, Sr has done something notable in his own right - being a church pastor and author of one book published by a church doesnt fall into that category. What next? A list of every church pastor and authors of church publications on the grounds that they are "notable", doesn't augur well for the future of this encyclopaedia. Megan1967 01:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Megan1967, as I wrote, his autobiography was published not by a church, but by a major commercial publisher (William Morrow & Co.) I noted specifically that the Church of the Brethren (through Brethren Press) published the book half about Rev. King Sr. (and his son) because the Church of the Brethren is so many worlds apart from Rev. King Sr.'s African-American church - it's predominantly a bunch of German emigres! This shows general notability in the context of American Christianity far outstripping most pastors. Samaritan 02:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Regardless of what church, it still doesn't make him notable in my books. Megan1967 23:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Megan1967, as I wrote, his autobiography was published not by a church, but by a major commercial publisher (William Morrow & Co.) I noted specifically that the Church of the Brethren (through Brethren Press) published the book half about Rev. King Sr. (and his son) because the Church of the Brethren is so many worlds apart from Rev. King Sr.'s African-American church - it's predominantly a bunch of German emigres! This shows general notability in the context of American Christianity far outstripping most pastors. Samaritan 02:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with Curps. Also Wikipedia is not genealogy or a memorial. Unless Martin Luther King, Sr has done something notable in his own right - being a church pastor and author of one book published by a church doesnt fall into that category. What next? A list of every church pastor and authors of church publications on the grounds that they are "notable", doesn't augur well for the future of this encyclopaedia. Megan1967 01:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- A very well written article, but I suspect it never would have been written if not for the stories and rumors that Hitler's real name was Schickelgruber, that he might have Jewish ancestry, and the whole circumstance of him being Austrian by nationality rather than German. Rather than entitle an article as "Hitler's family origins" or whatnot, it's more convenient to create an article about his father and put it there. Well, if an article about MLK Sr. ever reaches that level I suppose its existence might be justified in a way, although it's not a promising start at all. -- Curps 18:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, what about an article such as Alois Hitler? It think that when people reach a certain level of fame, there is so much historical interest in them that their close relatives become notable merely by association. Everyking 16:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- He's no more notable or famous than Bill Clinton's mother. A better case could be made for the father of Venus and Serena Williams, because he actually accomplished something notable in his own right by coaching his daughters his own unique and unorthodox way... and he's not in Wikipedia. MLK Sr. isn't notable merely for existing, that's absurd. -- Curps 14:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No, that isn't enough, but being MLK's father means he has a certain level of notability and fame. Everyking 14:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep regardless of what it looks like now. Just because it's not in very good shape at this point doesn't mean it can't be. No reason to delete; just fix it up. Ridethefire3211 14:08, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - "notability" is still not a primary criterion for deletion, and this isn't a delete as per the policy - David Gerard 15:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if not notability then there needs to be just plain fame or celebrity (in one's own right, however earned). Anna Nicole Smith is a textbook example of celebrity without notability, but mere celebrity makes her encyclopedic. MLK Sr. was never a celebrity in his own right. -- Curps 18:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Certainly it's a borderline thing (which is why it's on VFD). But this would be an unsightly lump on the side of the MLK Jr article - David Gerard 19:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if not notability then there needs to be just plain fame or celebrity (in one's own right, however earned). Anna Nicole Smith is a textbook example of celebrity without notability, but mere celebrity makes her encyclopedic. MLK Sr. was never a celebrity in his own right. -- Curps 18:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Article is a very basic stub, but could expand still. King is definitely noteworthy. Smoddy | Talk 17:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Being MLK's father doesn't make him notable enough, though it helps, but if everything Samaritan says is true, I think there's a worthy article waiting to be written. Tuf-Kat 19:12, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Tuf-Kat; it seems to me that there's enough out there to warrant an article. --Sarcasticninja 19:34, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep since MLKJr is important enough to have his own national holiday, I'd say his immediate family is important enough for a small article as well. I think it could also be a useful article as well, as MLKJr is the subject of tons of school reports, especially by kids. Thus, the more information we have on him and related subjects, the better. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:16, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Very strong keep. Curps is not correct. "Daddy King" was indeed notable in his own right. Besides being a significant preacher he was a social activist and a patron of Morehouse, a traditionally black college of high significance. I think that a vote for MLK Jr's father would be in order even if this were not the not the case, actually, for the same reasons as Starblind and Everyking, above. No, there's not much at this entry at present, but just because Wikipedia is woefully deficient in African American subject matter at present is not a good enough reason to delete. We've got "articles" on record albums, for crying out loud! Quill 22:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- Infrogmation 23:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, although some destubification is in order. -- Itai 00:00, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Although I disagree with keeping Paul Robeson's parents, Reverend King, Sr. is sufficiently notable in how own right. This article needs work, though. See [1]. RickK 00:14, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. ElBenevolente 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. MLK, Sr., was a prominent pastor of historic Ebenezer Baptist Church and a local civil rights leader -- as well as the most influential figure in the life of his young son, MLK, Jr. The article will be fleshed out in time. deeceevoice 03:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Neutralitytalk 03:36, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Martin Luther King Jr. has written that the influence of his father was highly significant in his decision to join the ministry and become active in the civil rights movement. King Sr. was pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church for 40 years with his son joining him in the ministry. He was also President of the Atlanta NAACP leading campaigns for wage equality for local teachers and against Jim Crow laws. King Sr. also paid a crucial role in persuading the black community to support Jimmy Carter's campaign for the Presidency in 1976. He read the invocation at the 1976 and 1980 Democratic National Convention and wrote an autobiography released through a mainstream publisher. I have added all of this information and more to the article. Capitalistroadster 04:35, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep As always, Capitalistroadster makes the voting easy. I think I'll give him a barnstar. The Steve 13:00, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Though not as famous as his son, he still seems notable, with some high-ranking positions, notable awards, and an autobiography. Psychonaut 18:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep this article!--Seth Goldin 18:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep this article. It currently contains a lot of information and seems encyclopedic. King Sr. appears notable in his own right, regardless of his son's accomplishments. --asciident 18:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the article. I agree completely with Capitalistroadster and Asciident here. WikiFan04 15:15, 17 Jan 2005 (CST)
- Keep this is nuts, on MLK's birthday no less. -Ld | talk 23:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks good to me. Kaldari 00:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. Sarge Baldy 05:01, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep If Roger Clinton and Jamie Lynn Spears have articles, I don't see why MLK Sr can't have one.Lokifer 04:38, 22 Jan 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.