Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perry Johnson (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 keep. Except for the nominator, unanimous support for keeping and consensus that the subject meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson (politician)

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a businessman and politician, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for businessman or politicians. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates (or even hinting at candidacies they haven't yet formally launched) for political office -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and non-winning candidates get articles only if either (a) they can be properly established as already having preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, or (b) they can show credible reasons why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly more enduring importance than everybody else's candidacies. But this basically glosses over his business career as mere background to the candidacies while failing to show any sources covering him in a business context at all, so it isn't passing the preexisting notability test, and it doesn't show any strong reason why his candidacy was more important than everybody else's, so it isn't passing the "special case" test. And as always, the mere existence of a handful of run of the mill campaign coverage, in the local media where campaign coverage of every candidate in every election is merely expected to exist, is not sufficient to claim that he would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to either win election to public office, or show more already-existing notability in business than this is attempting to establish. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians,  and Michigan. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Bearcat
 * I appreciate your feedback on the article in question and understand your concerns regarding the sourcing of the information. However, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment that the sources are not sufficient to pass NPOL criteria.
 * I would like to highlight that the sources used in the article are not limited to just local media coverage of the individual's political campaign. I have taken a comprehensive approach to research and have also included other credible sources such as interviews with the individual, industry publications, and news articles that provide insight into their business career.
 * Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that the purpose of the article is to provide a complete picture of the individual, including their background, achievements, and aspirations. The sources used in the article not only support the individual's candidacy for political office but also highlight their business acumen and contributions to their community and industry.
 * It is worth noting that Wikipedia's goal is to provide accurate and comprehensive information on all topics, and this includes individuals who have not yet held a notable political office but have made significant contributions in other areas. The individual in question may not have won a political election, but their business career and political aspirations are still significant and deserve to be documented and preserved.
 * In conclusion, I believe that the sources used in the article are credible, and relevant, and provide a comprehensive picture of the individual. I respectfully request that the article be allowed to remain on Wikipedia and that it be evaluated based on its merit and the information it provides. I believe that the article presents a neutral and balanced view of the individual and does not contain any semi-advertorialized information. I am grateful for your expertise and guidance, and I am eager to make the necessary adjustments to the article so that it meets the high standards set by Wikipedia. Your suggestions are greatly valued and I am honored to have the opportunity to implement them in a thoughtful manner.
 * Thank you for your time and consideration.
 * Sincerely,
 * Lasha.khosh Lasha.kh (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Interviews with the subject, in which he's talking about himself or other things in the first person, do not help to build passage of WP:GNG.
 * And by the same token, you do not make a person notable as a businessman by sourcing his career in business to primary sources like his own business website, or to campaign coverage which happens to briefly mention his business career by way of background — you would have to reference his business career to sources that centered his business career as foreground, and you haven't used any sources like that at all.
 * And no, unsuccessful candidacies do not pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep the probably is advertising for his campaign; I've found coverage about him over a lawsuit at being disqualified for a forged signature, and in WaPo , none of these are flattering coverage, but it's at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Like @Oaktree b, I also found independent coverage about him, even if this article does need major work to make it neutral CT55555 (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep I too think that the nature of the subject's 2022 campaign (Super Bowl ad and failure to make the ballot) move the subject closer to the Christine O'Donnell side of the spectrum of political candidates (that is more noteworthy than most). That said, the article was a mess and lots of the information was speculative and propaganda. I took the liberty to trim the article and remove much of the bloat. --Enos733 (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely noteworthy enough to be kept. There is also enough media coverage for him. --Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Oaktree.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 17:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep There's enough third-party coverage for him. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Has plenty of reliable sources.  NYC Guru (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 16.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 20:49, 16 February 2023 (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.