Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John J. Fisher Jr.

John J. Fisher Jr.

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

Nominated (diff) by 173.175.200.238 for the following reason: Although I see that state legislators are "presumed" to have notability, my understanding is that under WP:GNG that is not guaranteed. In this specific case, the person in question was only in office for less than a day, appointed to fill in for someone who resigned. I have no opinion of my own at this time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Entertainment,  and Illinois. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: If he doesn't surpass WP:NOPAGE, then an WP:ATD is a redirect to 100th Illinois General Assembly. Ultra-short term politicians certainly have the capacity to be notable (see List of members of the United States Congress by brevity of service, for instance), so that argument alone isn't enough. Curbon7 (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the topic and the available recent citations, I'm not even sure that that would be the best target. Following the nominator's argument that the political stint isn't notable, the best target would therefore be List of Jeopardy! contestants. microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 12:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, speedy close. With respect to WP:NPOL the fact that he did serve is backed up by reliable (yet primary) sources in the article. With respect to the other reason the subject is known, I'll give the best WP:THREE so far:
 * Given the above and the fact that the subject did hold office (albeit extremely briefly), I would also look to the guidance on WP:NOPAGE and think there's an argument that, even if all the sourcing stopped today, there is still justification for a standalone permanent stub. I think we can take the weight of presumably from WP:NPOL and the argument from the basic criteria that says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" such that, combined, there is reason to believe the subject notable here.
 * Further, I do believe there is precedent for NPOL, especially at the state level, requiring less SIGCOV than the GNG would otherwise require. This, I believe, is the main justification of the IP's argument for deletion, and the weight given to presumed. This argument is made with respect to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that the fact that the many politician state level stub categories exist and that the articles in those categories are presumed notable with minimal sourcing should demonstrate the implicit consensus about the required threshold for notability of senators at the state level. microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 14:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the above and the fact that the subject did hold office (albeit extremely briefly), I would also look to the guidance on WP:NOPAGE and think there's an argument that, even if all the sourcing stopped today, there is still justification for a standalone permanent stub. I think we can take the weight of presumably from WP:NPOL and the argument from the basic criteria that says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" such that, combined, there is reason to believe the subject notable here.
 * Further, I do believe there is precedent for NPOL, especially at the state level, requiring less SIGCOV than the GNG would otherwise require. This, I believe, is the main justification of the IP's argument for deletion, and the weight given to presumed. This argument is made with respect to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that the fact that the many politician state level stub categories exist and that the articles in those categories are presumed notable with minimal sourcing should demonstrate the implicit consensus about the required threshold for notability of senators at the state level. microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 14:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Further, I do believe there is precedent for NPOL, especially at the state level, requiring less SIGCOV than the GNG would otherwise require. This, I believe, is the main justification of the IP's argument for deletion, and the weight given to presumed. This argument is made with respect to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that the fact that the many politician state level stub categories exist and that the articles in those categories are presumed notable with minimal sourcing should demonstrate the implicit consensus about the required threshold for notability of senators at the state level. microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 14:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:NPOL. The brevity of the term seems to me to make him more notable, not less (it's unusually short). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NPOL. The coverage of him as a Jeopardy champ is just the cherry on top. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep per MicrobiologyMarcus. Subject passes WP:NPOL, and arguably WP:GNG as well. Sal2100 (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)