Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dennison (politician)

John Dennison (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod which was given no significant content. Subject was elected to what seems to be his first political position - on a local city council - since June 2022 and works on an ambulance. Important jobs but based on what has been presented in article, not wiki worthy. There are people that seem to disagree. BostonMensa (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. BostonMensa (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but per the guidance on WP:Notability, my judgement is this article's subject qualifies as notable because it meets the general notability guideline (GNG) and it is not excluded under WP:NOT.

The article meets the GNG because the topic is addressed in detail, with no original research. The source is a reliable and secondary source, and I, the creator of the article, am not affiliated with the subject. GNG says that an article might still be considered non-notable after discussion about its content, but none of the reasons given by the GNG for an article being non-notable apply. In particular the guidelines in Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information do not apply. Curiouskiwicat (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable politician lacks WP:SIGCOV would not meet WP:NPOL requirements. Hughesdarren (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV - non-notable local politician.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I see two claims that the article lacks or fails WP:SIGCOV, but it isn't clear to me what justifies those claims. Agreed that WP:NPOL is not met, but per WP:NPOL "such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". Then, consulting WP:SIGCOV, it looks like the GNG requirements are met. Curiouskiwicat (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]