Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Giordano (politician)

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. Sandstein 19:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Giordano (politician)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

this is nothing more than an overblown PR piece. I had assumed that someone appointed to the UNGA would be notable, but that doesn't appear to be the case. The other 3 people who were appointed are notable, however, not for being appointed and have held other positions (elected or otherwise) that meet WP:NPOL. The coverage here is minimal and the original claim that he was a "strong contender" for the US Attorney position are contradicted by two of the sources here, one which says he considered running vs. being considered by Trump. In any case, it never went anywhere and beyond a few GOP talking heads saying "he's great!" there isn't any coverage of it.

None of the other positions he's held are notable, they're basically assistant to the notable person/position.

As a note, I really dug into the UNGA positions and based on our article and the fact that even voted-on chairs and committee members don't have articles/aren't notable leads me to believe this one-time appointee with no meaningful coverage isn't either. (I know, I know. WP:OSE but I was using this as a gage of our standards for these positions.) CUPIDICAE💕 13:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did some digging as well and didn't see anything aside from a few mentions that he might be "in the mix" for the US Attorney of Philadelphia and the UN delegation. Doesn't look to be notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note An "overblown PR piece" is hardly fair considering I included an article critical of his association with Trump Bedminster Golf Club. His position with NJDEP is relevant to that relationship. Another contributor added the information about U.S Attorney which I agree is not relevant as he was never nominated nor is there any indication he was being considered by Trump. I disagree that someone appointed to UNGA is not notable. The lack of entries for those persons should not justify the oversight. There is additional information on him, including his association with Trump that I plan on adding. I was also planning on entries for the other three members appointed, but will wait to see if this article is deleted. Tommybrae (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to touch on the many reasons why your assertions are wrong, but I will note that the other three members do have articles because they were notable before the appointment and not because of it. Two were elected to congress which inherently meets WP:NPOL, another is the commissioner of American Battle Monuments Commission (though I have some doubts about notability because of this, she also meets WP:NACADEMIC). The difference between those three women and Giordano? They all have coverage and held notable positions as per WP:NPOL. Giordano has not and does not have the required coverage that is required to establish notability. CUPIDICAE💕 16:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First you slammed a very neutral article as "an overblown PR piece" and now you cancel me as "wrong" without providing any meaningful feedback that will help me improve my skills or provide me with guidance to include additional information that would meet the threshold. I expected more from this community. I will continue to add info as time allows until a decision is made. Tommybrae (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The main thrust for notability is representing the Us in the UN General Assembly. Although one might 3expect that to be notable, it needs to be demonstrated with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. In my search, I did not find such coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it could probably use more of a re-write with more sources to further demonstrate notability. John Giordano is becoming mildly notable per his positions and appointments. His range of positions are notable, though not excessively so. But I think that more sources and citations could further show the context of his mild notability. - KJS ml343x (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any of the sources that show his notability? I looked for a while and had no luck. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KJS ml343x none of his appointed positions meet WP:NPOL and he has never been elected to an office. CUPIDICAE💕 16:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hasn't received enough coverage to demonstrate notability, and if kept, probably needs to be renamed since he's clearly not a politician. SportingFlyer T·C 18:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note Praxidicae, who submitted this for deletion, continues to make edits to the article. They have have added content they believe is noteworthy along with comments to justify the inclusion. I don't believe someone would spend time improving an article they truly believed should be deleted. I hope this justifies keeping the article. Then Praxidicae can continue to edit. Tommybrae (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommybrae (talk • contribs) 21:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How ridiculous. This should still be deleted, my edits were merely reverting your blatant attempt at whitewashing. CUPIDICAE💕 22:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've omitted a fact: You added a sentence with the source. I didn't think it was germane so I deleted it (I still think it isn't). You reverted my edit thus re-adding your sentence. And now we are having a lively debate about content on a article! Again, you have shown it is worthy of keeping. Tommybrae (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not put words in my mouth, I have not and will not advocate for keeping this article. He isn't notable and you haven't found a single source that would establish that he is. CUPIDICAE💕 23:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "put words in your mouth" but you did put words in the article after having submitted it for deletion. You can't have it both ways - it should be available for anyone to edit, not just you until you cancel it for everyone else. Tommybrae (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you insinuating that a nominator cannot edit the article or it invalidates the nomination? CUPIDICAE💕 00:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of your edits was changing this: Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential Campaign to this: Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign. I reverted your edit because it is grammatically incorrect and made the article look amateurish. You reverted it back! Why? To make the page easier to delete? How do you even have admin rights? Tommybrae (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tommybrae you're really failing to understand the basics of Wikipedia. How do you even have admin rights? Easy. I don't. But my comments here and edits to the article aren't what preclude me from being an admin. CUPIDICAE💕 13:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not unusual for long-time editors to find an article worthy of deletion, yet make edits in a good faith effort to bring the entry nearer to acceptable standards. This is what I attempted at a related biography, Gregory Montanaro, which was in far worse condition. This is done in much the same spirit as ministering to the terminally ill. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing entirely fails to push this across the line of NPOL, NBIO or GNG. Jack Frost (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2021 (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.