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)
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)
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)
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)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Luther King, Sr.
