Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Powers


 * 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. Two relists have failed to stimulate any real discussion or conclusion: this individual appears to satisfy the general notability guideline but fails the specific guideline for politicians. Ultimately, there is no consensus as to whether one does, or should, trump the other, and hence no consensus to delete. ~ mazca  talk 20:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Jon Powers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Failed congressional candidate who is not otherwise notable. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Delete.

Prod tag removed by User:Cjs56 on the grounds that "his contributions [...] extend to his charity and his role in a notable film". Neither makes him notable, in my opinion: Lincolnite (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The charity he founded may have been featured on a few news programs but is undeniably minor
 * He was merely a member of the battalion featured in a niche documentary. So were several hundred other people. They are not notable as a result

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, subject fails WP:Politician and I cannot find reliable sources that wouls show notable in another way.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There's quite a bit of independent coverage of his campaigns here. In my view, the Buffalo News coverage meets WP:RS; and Powers is thus the subject of significant coverage. Accordingly, he meets WP:GNG notwithstanding the failure to meet any criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. But not a strong keep by any means; Wikipedia will not be at a loss if this article is deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but the article needs NPOV, since there's a lot of criticism out there that isn't in the article. E.g., .  THF (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 23:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep coverage in RS satisfies GNG, but we must be careful to maintain NPOV. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - not enough significant coverage to justify this article. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel&#39;s Demons (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, coverage satisfying the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Only coverage that exists is as a result of his failed political run. This sets a bad precident for any number of non-notable people getting articles since the press usually covers everyone on the ballot no matter how notable they are as a matter of practice to prevent accusations of Bias.  I can find numerous references of the dozens of people that filed to run for the Governer of California after the recall who were otherwise unknown but are mentioned in dozens of news articles for their failed bid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefariousski (talk • contribs) 23:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no notability shown apart from his candidacy. I do not agree that the GNG trumps WP:POLITICIAN. If that were so, POLITICIAN would be a dead letter, because every political candidate can show press cuttings based on his candidacy. If you read the WP:GNG in full, you will see that it says that sufficient coverage means a subject is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria, and a bullet point below says that this is "a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article." I say that WP:POLITICIAN constitutes such a consensus that, in order to prevent Wikipedia being used as an election soapbox, references concerned with a political candidacy do not constitute notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Sounds like a fine young man, but non-notable. Fails WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ENT if you want to claim he was an actor. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that the GNG is obsolete. It was adopted as a screening device long before G News archive and G Books had the wide-reaching coverage they do today, under the assumption that only the most notable things would have conveniently accessible sources. This is no longer the case, and we need to decide what will replace the GNG. The question then would be whether we wish to regard   major party candidates as notable regardless of whether they are successful. My view is, as usual, that we should compromise: the candidates for the major offices are notable, and I would include certainly all national legislatures and all state or provincial chief executives. I would not include candidates for seats in state or provincial legislatures--here we should include only the winners--so for about 90% or more of the political offices we think confers notability, only the actually successful candidates would count--giving us only a ten percent expansion on coverage. I consider that a very conservative extension--I am not a radical inclusionist.   (This person, therefore,  falls in the notable group.)
 * I could equally well have given a completely different argument: that the GNG is relevant, even though it shows that more people & things are notable  than some of us thought earlier. It is particularly relevant to politics--  it applies with special force here. Politics is the prime example of general notability, and that is why every  major party candidate   gets press coverage, because the public considers them important. And so they should, for politics is the central  function of civilized society.
 * For years we've been deleting those without apparent press coverage. Now we are asked to delete the ones who do have it. This is perhaps a little ridiculous. But what is truly ridiculous is the confusion implicit in the current notability guidelines.


 * Basic keep The GNG guideline overrides speciality N guidelines, (lowering the bar when 3rd party independent coverage could reasonably be expected to exist), it was always meant so, and has always been so. Turning this upside down is flawed reasoning.  It also raises basic difficulties for our processes, for how are we normal editors going to keep track of the undergrowth of speciality guidelines, in which there may be very limited participation.  The worst example I have seen is seven editors and a 4:3 vote that was succesfully presented as "community consensus" for a change to WP:PORN.  As long as the GNG guideline overrides the speciality guidelines, major harm to the project is unlikely, and I do prefer that we spend our time actually contributing with content etc, not monitoring all this bureaucracy. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2010 (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.