Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Jensen (2nd nomination)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Jensen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insignificant public servant, seems to have been created to make a point about his salary. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify that while this is the second nomination for a page with this title, it is unrelated to the Colin Jensen who was the subject of the first iteration.
I created this article after seeing a broken link for Colin Jensen on the page for City of Brisbane. It was indeed not made to make a point about his salary. I was hesitant leaving an entire section for remuneration - I'll work on that; this is the first article that I have made. I respectfully dispute that he is an insignificant public servant - I would contend that the CEO of the largest LGA in the country is rather significant. Give me some time to beef it up a bit, thanks! Prymal (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The chief executive of a major city council is clearly notable and hardly "insignificant". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please point to the notability guideline which says this LibStar (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you always demand guidelines as if that's the be all and end all of Wikipedia? Common sense doesn't need guidelines. This is the day-to-day manager of a city of two and a quarter million people for crying out loud! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

because that's how we assess notability. We have established guidelines. For ages you used to carry on about all ambassadors being automatically notable because it's common sense when there is no guideline or consensus which states that. Then you said being ambassador to Russia is automatically notable despite everyone else on the AfD voting delete. Time to stop inventing your own notability bar and stick to established guidelines. Or better still actually search for sources to establish WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should probably try reading WP:BURO. Amazed you haven't done already given how long you've been here. Wikipedia is governed by consensus. Consensus is created largely at AfD. We are here to discuss whether this individual is notable, not immediately disqualify him because there's no guideline that specifically says he is (that would mean Wikipedia was a bureaucracy and would render AfD discussion pointless). I have an opinion. I am entitled to express it. This is not "inventing [my] own notability bar". It is saying what I believe to be true in the best interests of Wikipedia. You really need to learn the difference. And for the record, I still believe that ambassadors are inherently notable! Consensus for the moment is against me, which is why I have generally stopped bothering to argue it. It certainly doesn't mean I've changed my opinion. Neither does it mean that I'm not entitled to express my opinion (odd that you seem to think it does - clearly you're not really a fan of discussion on Wikipedia). And consensus can change. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to understand how notability works in Wikipedia. People in particular must meet one of the notability guidelines if not the basic WP:GNG or WP:BIO applies yet I've never seen you actually demonstrate or search for coverage which is the best way to save an article instead quoting "opinions" that don't have any consensus as some sort of pseudo notability guideline, it really is WP:ITSNOTABLE. Consensus does change but you need to argue your case for changing notability guidelines on respective talk pages which many editors do if consensus changes. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem not to understand how not to patronise very experienced editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it's not patronising, as an experienced editor you should know how afds work, again you're making no genuine attempt to find sources. And again your pseudo notability opinion doesn't have consensus. LibStar (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete whilst a mayor of a large city council is usually granted notability, chief executives do not, and thus need to satisfy WP:BIO. he is a senior public servant but insufficient in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His position is not notable enough and he still doesn't meet the GNG benchmark given the sources cited. Delta13C (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify what GNG benchmark means?Prymal (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an inherently notable position and fails GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A city manager or CAO can get into Wikipedia if an article about them can be written that's substantive enough and well-sourced enough to pass WP:GNG, but it is not a position that can confer an automatic inclusion freebie just because the person exists — and there are many places much larger than Brisbane where the CAO does not have an article, so Brisbane's size has no bearing on the matter one way or the other. One of the reasons we have inclusion standards and reliable sourcing requirements is that having a Wikipedia article is actually a double-edged sword — because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, a significant number of anybodies regularly try to misuse us as a venue for publishing attack edits against our article topics. So Wikipedia's standards are designed to mitigate against that, by ensuring that our subjects have (a) sufficient media coverage by which the content can be properly verified, and (b) enough public prominence that a reasonable number of responsible Wikipedians can actually be expected to maintain a satisfactory level of quality control over the article. There is a level of prominence below which the wiki model falls flat on its face, because there are so few people visiting the article that vandalism or attack edits can go uncaught for weeks or even months at a time because nobody's even seeing it. So our inclusion standards and RS requirements and WP:BLP rules are designed in part around the principle of protecting people from the unintended consequences of a Wikipedia article — so for that reason, one editor's subjective opinion about "common sense" cannot trump WP:GNG or WP:RS. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2016 (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.