Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Jones (Louisiana 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   no consensus. There was some pretty average arguments thrust forward to keep the article, but some decent ones too. Definitely no consensus to delete can be found below. Daniel (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Don Jones (Louisiana politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only claim to fame is being the mayor of a medium-small (61k population) town, does not meet WP:NPOL; no significant third-party coverage, just a few passing mentions. Prod was disputed by creator. See also Articles_for_deletion/J._Earl_Downs. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  18:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. In addition to being mayor, Mr. Jones was national president of the Jaycees. There are sources from Bloomberg Businessweek, Shreveport Times (four), Los Angeles Times, Bossier Press-Tribune (twice), KSLA-TV, KTBS-TV, the Jaycees, and a book about his business, political, and civic activities.Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment from a footnote in WP:BIO: ...politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. Jones was only mentioned briefly in the sources above. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. This has been demonstrated in the revised article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Billy, adding masses of automatically generated stuff, primary sources, passing mentions and lists that happen to include the subject's name isn't going to get you anywhere. 90% of the sources in the article now should probably just be deleted - they aren't reliable sources anyway. You're far better off focusing on the 2-3 quality sources (if they exist) that give significant coverage to the subject. Yes, there are "sources" from the news outlets you list above but the majority of them are passing mentions and contribute not-at-all to notability. Often, having 2 good sources is better than having 50 rubbish ones.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm not convinced any of his roles were particularly significant and being mayor is not guarantee of notability (mayors of major cities are generally notable). National presidency of the JCI doesn't seem significant - most of the international presidents aren't notable. Passing mentions i routine business announcements or automatically generated profiles (like Bloomberg) aren't "significant coverage". The Shreveport Times article might count but it's very local in scope and isn't "multiple" anyway.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Population issue The notability rules says nothing about mayors or the size of their cities. Portland, Maine, has a population 5,000 larger than Bossier City, but it has 24 mayors all deemed notable with their own Wikipedia articles. Wilmington, Delaware, is 9,000 larger than Bossier City, but it has ten mayors with Wikipedia articles. Santa Fe, New Mexico, is 9,000 larger than Bossier City, and has ten mayors with their own articles. Missoula, Montana, which is 5,000 larger than Bossier City, has articles on sixteen mayors. Lancaster, Pennsylvania, is smaller than Bossier City and has articles on 41 mayors. The notability rule says there must be extensive press coverage of a local politician. That's all it says. This is clearly met here with Mr. Jones. Billy Hathorn (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, they don't but the guidelines say, "Politicians [...] who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" and "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". Local politicians who have only received local coverage don't fall into that category, in my view.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * National Jaycee President. This should qualify Mr. Jones in addition to the political material. The president of a state bar association or a state historical association is considered inherently notable for Wikipedia purposes. Therefore, why would not a national (not just state, as he also was) Jaycee president meet the test? Billy Hathorn (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You're entitled to that opinion but I don't think it matches consensus on such things. I'd be interested to see the policy or guideline that says "presidents of a state historical association" are inherently notable. Again, the organisation's international presidents aren't considered inherently notable. ''' St ★ lwart [[User talk:Stalwart111|1 1 1 ]] ''' 06:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in the guideline about presidents of a state bar association or of a state historical association. These findings on notability came from challenges to individual articles. The determination was that the highest public position in their profession statewide made them notable. Of course, there were other factors involved too. Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Though the guidelines do not mention the office of mayor, it would seem that they come under "local politicians" in the Bossier City case. It does not say that the news coverage of these local politicians has to be out of state, though I did find at least one out-of-state in the Jones case. Fairbanks, Alaska, is less than half the size of Bossier City. It has seven mayors on Wikipedia, none of the name recognizable except to a few outside of Alaska. I have articles on seven Bossier mayors that are under challenge. If the Bossier City articles are removed, are you also going to challenge the ones in Fairbanks? Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, I'd like to see that "determination" but results from other AFDs are not precedent-setting until there are so many of them that they represent a common consensus per WP:OUTCOMES. It doesn't mention mayors specifically but even WP:N requires that topics have "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large". I don't think that local coverage in local papers of a local mayor could possibly be considered the "world at large".  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No one is participating in the discussion. Some six days have passed since the article was challenged, but there have been no participants.Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Three people have commented here. The arguments you've put forward aren't at all based on policy and while you're entitled to your personal opinions, such things are likely to be disregarded by a closing admin. There's not much point discussing those ideas further. Without better quality sourcing to consider, there isn't much more to discuss.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see two people who oppose having the article and no one else NEW who has commented in six days. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I commented only yesterday. I still don't get "no one is participating". If there aren't enough comments for an admin to make a decision then it will be re-listed.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: If we delete this guy, then per Billy Hathorn's "population issue" above, there are up to 101 mayors in just five cities whose articles are begging for equal-treatment AfDs. Is this the slippery slope we want to go down? (And I ask that as the recently-spanked AfD nominator of several dubiously kept BLPs few if any of whom equal the current minimal notability of this subject.) Pax 02:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * AFDs aren't precedent-setting. Population is not a valid reason for deleting the articles of small-town mayors, nor is it a valid reason for keeping them either. WP:OTHERSTUFF and other guidelines like it prevent other editors from pointing to this AFD as a valid reason for deleting others. These should be considered on a case-by-case basis and so failing WP:NPOL, we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. If you could provide examples of such, it'd be a different story.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't hinging an argument on population, merely indicating whose post I was referring to. Concerning the subject of the AfD, I will straight-up guess that at least three-quarters of those 101 mayors in 5 cities are less notable than this person. But let's hedge the bet to only half. - That means the slippy-slope leads to approximately fifty more mayors from just five cities flooding the noticeboard. I would also counter-argue that AfDs are precedent-setting: once a couple have been deleted, it becomes natural for editors to nominate similar articles and vote on them similarly, and for administrators to close them similarly. My recommendation would be, if we're going to commit to this, that list or table articles be created and used for redirection. (Not only would this preserve and concentrate information, it would prevent article recreation by unknowing editors in the future.)  I posed similar concerns at the Nikki Groarke AfD, that one involving clergy rather than politicians. Pax 06:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That'd only be a couple of days worth of AFD, less if they were group-nominated. With a lack of coverage in reliable sources, these sorts of BLPs become WP:OR magnets. Again, we shouldn't be keeping something because we're scared of the amount of work that might come of it. There's no guarantee it would result in more work (WP:OTHERSTUFF remains a guideline) and if it did, so be it. I'd be fine with a redirect to a list article but this BLP should be deleted while that doesn't exist - the title can always be redirected there later.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There is very little significant press coverage in the article. While more and more substantive coverage may exist, most of the coverage that is currently cited in the article merely mention his name or provide a brief comment. The subject is not the subject of many of the articles. The Shreveport paper is the subject's home paper and would be expected to provide routine coverage that is referenced in the article. --Enos733 (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Cut off for a WP:POLITICO pass for mayoralty is 50,000 in my book. No, that's not a guideline, it just makes sense to me. For a city council member, figure 100,000+. Nice round numbers. Carrite (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Though I disagree with it, that certainly is a novel approach. Better than half the policies we have around here. Nonetheless, the population of the city when he was mayor was barely 50,000 and the number of constituents would have been considerably less than that.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * More population examples. Here are more examples of cities, population, and number of mayoral articles on Wikipedia:


 * Scranton, Pennsylvania, 76,000, 6
 * Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 50,000, 6
 * Burlington, Vermont, 42,000, 6
 * Augusta, Maine, 19,000, 7
 * New London, Connecticut, 28,000, 5
 * Terre Haute, Indiana, 61,000, 4
 * Wasilla, Alaska, 8,000, 5
 * Hoboken, New Jersey, 50,000, 23
 * Juneau, Alaska, 31,000, 18
 * Key West, Florida, 25,000, 8
 * Medford, Oregon, 56,000, 12
 * Norwalk, Connecticut, 85,600, 87
 * East Orange, New Jersey, 64,000, 6
 * Taunton, Massachusetts, 56,000, 13


 * Bossier City, Louisiana, 61,000, 10 (with two more possible)

In addition, Bangor, Maine, 33,000, has 8 mayoral but 12 on city council members. Usually, the city council members are not included on Wikipedia unless they also held other offices, or there were other factors involved. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note. This article was marked for possible deletion on Jan. 14, but it does not seem to be on the master listing unless I overlooked it after two checks. The first defense of the article was posted on Jan. 15. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Billy Hathorn: This debate has been relisted. It is now logged under January 22. Altamel (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable local politician. First, let's dispose of the size-of-city argument: it has no merit. There is no consensus about how big a city has to be for its mayor to be "presumed notable". Except for the very largest (or "regionally prominent") cities, the mayor has to meet GNG to be included here. And in those larger cities, they are included only because there is a presumption that they WOULD meet GNG with proper searching. See WP:POLOUTCOMES. Second, being national president of the Jaycees or any similar organization does not confer automatic notability. Look, for example, at List of presidents of the American Medical Association and see how few of them have articles here. Finally, the references at the article do not amount to GNG. They are routine local coverage about elections and minor local issues. --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply When did local newspapers become inadmissible for local politicians? So long as they are reliable, why would this be an issue? There are many sources here, most Internet based. The Jones article also has him quoted in The Los Angeles Times c. 1987. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Further reply Mr. Jones is also in Who's Who in American Politics, 2006-2007, twenty years after he left the office of mayor, and he is included in an article with his photo in Historic Shreveport-Bossier: An Illustrated History of Shreveport and Bossier City (2000). This article is well sourced for the information available. The only way to get more sourced material would be to go through microfilm of The Shreveport Times from 1984 to 1989.Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * the usual explanation is that local newspapers are unreliable to show notability for local pelicans and local businesses, etc, because they will cover every one of them, regardless of importance, and are therefore unselective. They are of course reliable for their career when an article can be justified.   DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" - small local newspapers aren't "the world at large".  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep We have no fixed standard for the size of the city to make a mayor notable. When I came here 8 years ago, the accepted standard was about 100,000; sometimes we have accepted low. Between 50 and 100 000 they usually do get kept, between 35 and 50,000, sometimes, between 24=5 and 35 000 rarely;  below 25,000, almost never, unless the importance of the town is greater than the population would by itself indicate. . There's no clear rule whether the population is at the time of the morality or the current day, because mayors of smaller town that become large cites could be considered notable to keep a series--and because all cities were relatively smaller once, so the historical standard should be lower.
 * At the time of his mayoralty, the city had about 51,000 people. That's just over the line. Looked at differently, it's the 518th largest--I can see our keeping a cutoff at wither the largest 500 or the largest thousand in the US.
 * I think this is close enough to get the balance of the doubt. We don;t follow precent, but we do aim for consistency.
 * But more important, he was Jaycee's national president. This is a major national organization, and president of it justifies notability. As for comparative organizations, the reason the presidents of the AMA don't have articles its that nobody has had the interest to write them--I'm not aware of any of them begin deleted. This is true for most major national organizations where people are interested enough to do the work, in the US or in any other country. I'm sure an article on every last one of them would stand up without much difficulty.
 * knows I have been no fan of some of his articles where he is stretching the limits, and have in fact nominated quite a few for deletion over they years. But this one is fully supportable, and seems to be a well written proportionate and well sourced article .   DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.