Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Winningham


 * 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jon Winningham

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable former local politician with criminal conviction. News coverage appears to be strictly local based on Google search and check of some major newsgathering sites. Risker (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's referenced... TreasuryTag  talk contribs  07:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A council member for a city of 7,000 has negligible notability. Committing a crime is, unfortunately, something even non-notable people do, and that doesn't automatically make them notable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - He was in a position of power within a council (ie. respect) AND was convicted for possession of child pornography. To me, this means a weak keep simply because of the "fall from grace" associated with such a crime. It's referenced and it has at least some notability. SMC (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - as a city councillor he would not be very notable, and a user of child pornography that does not give him much notability (perhaps notoriety). Putting the two together, given that there are only local sources gives very marginal notability. I would be inclined to delete and given WP:BLP, I don't think we should have an article on him only due to his criminality. EJF (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing more than a run of the mill councillor and criminal. Not notable.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete; as per Dhartung. I'm sure that I can find many, many references in the Alva Review Courier to the mayor and city councillors of Alva, Oklahoma; that doesn't make them worth articles. Newspapers aren't great sources at best--articles have very narrow focus--and they're especially bad for biographies, which need to be more than "city councillor and the crimes he's done."--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A city councillor of a city of population 7,139 would not normally be notable--only for major cities. The minimum here here has been at 100,000--there are 259 cities List of United States cities by population that size or larger, though I would go even higher--there are a few cases where 50,000 has been accepted, but certainly not 7,000. A minor criminal conviction does not make him the more notable. This is a why we have the one-event part of BLP. It's missued when it applies to people of national interest. It's correctly used for cases like this. DGG (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons give above Professor marginalia (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - non notable for his position on the council, which becomes notable for the incident and refusal to stand down. Also, its properly referenced.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - for failing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable. Too regional in scope. Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 21:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly notable for a single incident. If the incident was notable (which I doubt), an article can be created on it, per WP:BLP. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2008 (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.