Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe B. Jackson

Add links
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. arguments of inherent notability are weak when this isn't clear cut and are argued instead of finding sources. Spartaz Humbug! 10:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe B. Jackson[edit]

Joe B. Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot see evidence that this mayor is notable. Have found and added one additional source but this does not make significant coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A mayor of a city with more than 100,000 residents is certainly notable.--IndyNotes (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Murphressboro was at 68,000 people in 2000, and 44,000 in 1990 in the middle of his term as mayor. Beyond this, we need significant indepth coverage to show a mayor is notable, which is lacking here. Lastly, Murphressboro is a periferale city within the Nashville Metro Area, not a key regional power city. My own city has over 100,000 inhabi9tants, yet we deleted the biography of our previous mayor, and I was a supporter of the deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and that growth is directly attributable to the mayor. I agree that more in-depth discussion would be useful and valuable, however.--IndyNotes (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears he is the city’s longest serving mayor, was on the board of the National League of Cities (a notable and influential organization), and the population doubled during his tenure. Additionally, a major thoroughfare was name after him. This isn’t some throw away mayor; it meets the qualifications for notability.--IndyNotes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a clearly notable mayor.--YHoshua (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this. The population of a city is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of enough significant reliable source coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2 — but the only sources here are a (deadlinked) profile on the website of the local genealogy society (which is not a reliable or notability-assisting source), a glancing namecheck of his existence in the congressional record (which is not a notability-assisting source), and a single obituary. And no, having had a street named after him in the city is not a notability claim for a mayor, either — if that were all it took, we would have to keep articles about at least 75 per cent of everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere, because naming new streets or public buildings after former mayors is just a commonplace and run of the mill thing that towns and cities everywhere quite regularly do. If he could be sourced significantly better than this, then it wouldn't matter what population the city has or had — but the city's population does not in and of itself exempt him from having to be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly the article could be better, but the question here is notability, not article quality. Because of the significance of his city and the length of his tenure, Jackson is clearly notable. I hope editors will channel their energy into improving the article rather than trying to delete it.Kiernanmc (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the size of the city nor the length of his tenure ever exempts any mayor from having to be sourced better than this. Notability only extends to mayors who are properly sourced as the subject of enough significant reliable source coverage to clear NPOL #2, and a mayor whose article is not already at that level is not kept on a "maybe somebody might be able to fix this someday" basis — enough quality sourcing to get this kept has to be shown to definitely exist (preferably by actually adding it to the article, but at the very least by showing hard data from a real search for better sources in this discussion), not just presumed to probably exist, before we can keep an article about a mayor. So if you want this kept, you have to do the work needed to make it keepable — complaining about what other editors are or aren't channelling their energy into is not a keep criterion. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joe_B._Jackson&oldid=1071952562"