Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clayton Junkins
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Clayton_Junkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Politician that is a candidate for a mayor that doesn't meet criteria in WP:Politician, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. Was originally a speedy delete but the user deleted the speedy delete. I don't believe it even qualifies for a speedy delete because of WP:NOTCSD 5. TParis00ap (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as is suggested above, this is on the borderline for a speedy. I would say it runs afoul of WP:CSD#A7 since the article does not make any claim which can be interpreted as meeting notability requirements but I know not everyone would be so liberal in interpretation of the reach of that specific CSD. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 06:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:A7 does not pertain to notability, it pertains to importance/significance. For a topic to have been the subject of an article in The Jacksonville Observer[1] confers it both. Skomorokh 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A fair correction, though the definition of significance, beyond being a lower standard than notability, is somewhat unclear. If you want we can continue this discussion on my talk page. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 01:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're right that it's necessarily subjective, so it's not unusual that we would disagree. Do you not think the references mean the topic meets WP:GNG though? Regards, Skomorokh 11:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first reference is only a mention that he has filed for the election. The last reference doesn't open for me. I'd consider this article significant coverage, but only for now. If he doesn't win, and not neccessarily if he does win, I don't see how he will be notable in a year. WP:BLP1E.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're right that it's necessarily subjective, so it's not unusual that we would disagree. Do you not think the references mean the topic meets WP:GNG though? Regards, Skomorokh 11:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A fair correction, though the definition of significance, beyond being a lower standard than notability, is somewhat unclear. If you want we can continue this discussion on my talk page. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 01:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:A7 does not pertain to notability, it pertains to importance/significance. For a topic to have been the subject of an article in The Jacksonville Observer[1] confers it both. Skomorokh 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdent) I agree with TParis00ap, but refer you specifically to WP:POLITICIAN rather than BLP1E (which I feel is intended for people who have been "swept along" with an event, rather than people seeking notability). If he wins, there will be a case, but a mention in a couple of newspapers does not confer notability for a political candidate. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "A mention in a couple of newspapers" is also known as the encyclopaedia's general notability guideline, to which all other notability guidelines, including WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BLP1E are subservient, n'est pas? Skomorokh 00:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope - needs substantial coverage - not mention. Toddst1 (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it's more than a mention, it is an entire article, but that is why I brought up WP:BLP1E. I also think WP:POLITICIAN was created for a reason. It is reasonable to assume a candidate for any office would have at least one article about them. That doesn't make them notable. If I ran for mayor of Eugene, OR, how would that make TParis00ap a notable name (I left out my real name obviously). Who will care in 1 year, 10 years, or more? In this case, WP:POLITICIAN is clearly says a candidate is not notable enough. And as far as WP:GNG go, I am suggesting WP:IAR.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "A mention in a couple of newspapers" is also known as the encyclopaedia's general notability guideline, to which all other notability guidelines, including WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BLP1E are subservient, n'est pas? Skomorokh 00:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Important to note is that both WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN are guidelines and that they complement each other. Specifically, politician is a guideline for the interpretation of N in the context of politicians. Neither one overrules the other, and both need to be treated with common sense. The only policy involved here is WP:BLP. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:Politician. Toddst1 (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2009 (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.