Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Jay Hooker


 * 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

John Jay Hooker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

May not pass wp:POLITICIAN, as this subject never held elected office. Running unsuccessfully for office is not a yardstick for notability. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Through he may not pass the strict requirements under WP:POLITICIAN, WP:Politician provides that politicians may nevertheless be notable if they pass WP:GNG. Here we have a figure who, despite never having held any elected office, was known for his legal-political activities as a perennial candidate and litigant. He is also covered in multiple reliable sources, including a New York Times article on his life and legal/political career, another article detailing his influence, to name a few. Clearly passes WP:GNG --Dps04 (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not written in an encyclopedic style, but passes GNG. Caro7200 (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - John Jay Hooker is notable. The page needs improvement not deletion. Mattise135 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - For the same reasons posted here by three prior editors. By the OP's criteria, take a look at Rocky De La Fuente (which page is also a keeper). Other than obvious fluff or violation of other policies, it's nearly always better to retain; there needs to be a good reason to delete. What's garbage to one reader can be important to another. Also, this is not a vanity article by a single editor; a number of different editors have contributed to it, which itself is an important consideration. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2020 (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.