Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dennison (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 redirect to The Opportunities Party. A redirect preserves the content of the article. If he does anything that the media or academics take note of, this article can be restored. But, until then, the consensus has determined that Dennison doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

John Dennison (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Contested prod which was given no significant content. Subject was elected to what seems to be his first political position - on a local city council - since June 2022 and works on an ambulance. Important jobs but based on what has been presented in article, not wiki worthy. There are people that seem to disagree. BostonMensa (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. BostonMensa (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep:I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but per the guidance on WP:Notability, my judgement is this article's subject qualifies as notable because it meets the general notability guideline (GNG) and it is not excluded under WP:NOT.
 * The article meets the GNG because the topic is addressed in detail, with no original research. The source is a reliable and secondary source, and I, the creator of the article, am not affiliated with the subject. GNG says that an article might still be considered non-notable after discussion about its content, but none of the reasons given by the GNG for an article being non-notable apply. In particular the guidelines in What_Wikipedia_is_not do not apply. Curiouskiwicat (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable politician lacks WP:SIGCOV would not meet WP:NPOL requirements. Hughesdarren (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV - non-notable local politician. Onel 5969  TT me 10:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see two claims that the article lacks or fails WP:SIGCOV, but it isn't clear to me what justifies those claims. Agreed that WP:NPOL is not met, but per WP:NPOL "such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". Then, consulting WP:SIGCOV, it looks like the GNG requirements are met. Curiouskiwicat (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, the question doesn’t solely lie with the amount of coverage or quality. A major newspaper like The New York Times or The Washington Post can write a story about a little lagged team that goes far in the state championship tournament.  The team could have something of a human interest angle to it like all the kids come from the local homeless shelter so the roster is always changing yet they still made it to the quarter finals. Heartwarming story but that doesn’t mean the coach or star player deserves a wiki article.  The article could ne written again down the road if the subject becomes an athlete say at the Olympic level especially if they medal in their sport but not because they had an ERA of .129 in five little league games when they were ten. BostonMensa (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense as a bunch of claims, but I don't see support for it in WP:SIGCOV. Maybe there are a bunch of unwritten rules on wikipedia about what makes an article significant and in that case I guess I have to defer to more experienced editors. But I have to say, as a general note, it makes it discouraging to contribute if the guidance isn't clear and it's difficult to know before putting work into creating an article whether it passes the unwritten rules or not. Curiouskiwicat (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I know it can be difficult to figure out in the beginning but that is why I worded it the way I did.  Let’s say you have a chance wrote one new article and only one.  Remember that the hypothetical little league story is a human interest story.  And I chose that as an analogy to John Dennison.  And you have someone in their first ever professional acting role win a major award like best actor for an Oscar, Bafta, etc.  and is nominated for several others. Again, you can only write one reticle.  Who do you think is more worthy of the article - John Dennison or the first time actor nominated for five acting awards and the winner of one or two of them?  BostonMensa (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the three sources in the article, the 1news article has, at best, about 7 sentences about Dennison (less than half the article), and that's including a quote from his party leader saying, “John’s just a great guy and we’re really thrilled he’s been elected.” Stuff mentions Dennison in only one sentence, indicating that he was elected to the community board with 715 votes but with no other information about him. And the other source is his own self-prepared campaign statement, not an independent source. These do not seem to meet the WP:SIGCOV standards even when combined. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Opportunities Party, of which he is the first candidate elected. The board to which he was elected, Featherston Community Board, doesn't even have a Wikipedia article (the town Featherston, New Zealand does, but I don't see a mention of its community board in that article). One of the articles cited here says, "John Dennison, an ambulance driver, got the call last week to say he’d been elected to the Featherston Community Board, which advocates to the South Wairarapa District Council. It’s effectively the lowest rung of New Zealand’s political ladder." Being elected to the lowest political office in one's country is better than not being elected, but it's not enough to justify a Wikipedia article about him, notwithstanding another quote from the same article: "Dennison himself said he was delighted with the achievement, joking, “As the first TOP person to be elected, I am expecting a Wikipedia entry"." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I just saw the video news story where he said that. I can’t help but wonder if Curiouskiwicat feels it is funny to do this. Plus, I am having trouble pinning down the exact date of the election but I keep seeing things that make me think it was 10/16/22. BostonMensa (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * According to this page the election was held on 8 October 2022. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I found it out later and IIRC put it in the article. Whether I did or not, he is still, AFAIK, still not inaugurated. BostonMensa (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to The Opportunities Party, local politicians are usually not notable; while Dennison has received a single piece of non-routine SIGCOV here in 1News, this is the only such coverage he has received, since the Global Herald piece cited is almost certainly an unreliable source, and the Stuff article is a passing mention. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - Being the first of anything is something I think is worthy of a Wikipedia page and especially if John Dennison ends up playing a larger role in the The Opportunities Party (since he's clearly the most electable). He also won't be the only local politician from New Zealand with a Wikipedia entry and also it's pretty disingenuous to say his achievement doesn't matter because he sits at the "lowest rung of the political ladder," not only because he still has a lot of power relative to you and I; but also because it's just not how politics works half the time. It's not just members of parliament and their lobbyists and mistresses, it's also community board members and their lobbyists and mistresses. Kunanjaada (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ring the first isn’t the issue. The issue is he was elected less than a week before the article was written so he has nothing related to his council job to be discussed. There is no indication of anything wiki worthy he has done in his personal life (ie being the NZ Scrabble champion five of the last ten years) or in his job as an ambulance driver. His election can be mentioned on the TOP page because for them it is notable.  But if he does do anything notable as a politician in the future, the article can be rewritten.


 * Delete or redirect. Local district council is not a level of office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself — the bar for including a local councillor is not "verify that he exists", it's "demonstrate a reason why he should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring importance than most other local councillors". But merely being the first member of his own minor party to win an election is not such a reason in and of itself, and the sourcing here is not mounting a strong case that he would pass WP:GNG — with two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and just three hits of the merely run of the mill coverage that any winner of any election could always show, there isn't enough here to make him a special case over and above other people at the same level of office. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2022 (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.