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 already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallelujah House. --Coredesat 00:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack M Oliphant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not notable Not notable, see associated discussion on Hallelujah House Jemather 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because I can't find enough attributable information to make an encyclopedic article. Sancho (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have been trying to get reliable independent info about Jack M Oliphant and have been unable to confirm anything. I should not have created this article without learning more about Wikipedia first and getting some solid facts with references. I do not know the definition of notable. He was connected with Lee Harvey Oswald - Ty Hardin - Timothy McVeigh and was caught planning the bombing of the Hoover Dam and the FBI Headquarters. Please go ahead and remove it. If the FOI requests I made confirm his millitary record, working for OSS or anything else someone can always create a new article right? Scottprovost 10:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you could always create a new article. By the way, I think many of us don't know the definition of "notable" :-) There's an ongoing discussion regarding whether or not this should even be a reason for acceptance/deletion of articles. Regardless, this article doesn't have attributable information (see WP:ATT), which is a policy. It seems that you understand this, though. Sancho (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there are a bunch of wild claims but hardly an attributable source in the whole article. As is it fails WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:ATT and WP:V. Alf^Photoman 15:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. There are a few hits referencing the name as a 70s/80s militia nut associated with the Christian Identity movement, but I just don't see this passing WP:BIO. RGTraynor 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To give you an idea of the difficulty I have met with. Apparently his military rank is still classified. Even prisoners of war are allowed to give their rank. How can it be sensitive and ineligible for FOI release 60 years later and after he is dead. US News and World Report has information but has been asked not to release it. They claim that it is nothing significant, mostly related to the Kennedy event. All those surveillance records are set to be released for FOI but not available yet. Is is notable that all the other operatives involved in the Kennedy investigation are considered notable. The fact that Jack is known for being on the side of the Government in 1962 and against the government with Timothy McVeigh with a religious cult to his credit in the meanwile shouldn't make him less notable should it? Scottprovost 09:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with you re-creating this article or put it on DRV once you have the sources. With the kind of evidence you presented thus far not even a tabloid would print it. Alf^Photoman 14:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Wikipedia's guiding principle is verification; if you cannot verify it, you cannot include it. If you have any such facts, you should be able to provide your sources. If you have no sources to provide, then no, this fellow isn't notable. RGTraynor 14:57, 9 March 2007 (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.