Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Thomson


 * 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. Rlendog (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Jack Thomson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 16:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 16:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete Local town clerk. Notability not established in accordance with topical notability guidelines for politicians or the general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Best regards,  Cindy  ( talk to me ) 11:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete On the reasonably assumption that the article's writer included whatever coverage there is, not notable. Too bad -- nice portrait of an apparently nice person. EEng (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as of strictly local interest. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial for otherwise nonnotable persons. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Question. Why don't you guys consider this article to be significant coverage? It's a big article in Australia's second biggest broadsheet, The Age? Jenks24 (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. But (a) it's a single article (b) it's unsigned (c) it's based on an interview with the subject rather than investigative journalism (d) it's about things like his hobbies, essentially a human interest story. So yes, it's an article, and with a whole bunch of other articles it might be enough, but it's not enough by itself and it doesn't suggest or infer that there are many other articles out there that we haven't found yet. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2012 (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.