Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John E. James

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. Evidently a WP:POINT nom (and several POINT !votes), but there has been a discussion with arguments on both sides, so speedy keep due to withdrawal is not possible. We appear to have several WP:SPAs here, I'll remind them that this is a debate, not a vote.

We have no policy that states that unelected candidates for public office are not notable. I don't see any attempt to refute the arguments that James is notable under the GNG, so our consensus is to keep per the GNG. ST47 (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John E. James

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

If Theresa Greenfield isn't considered notable, then John James shouldn't be either. WP:NPOL needs to be applied equally, and James does not meet WP:GNG. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 20:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Withdrawing my nomination, now that consensus has been reached on Theresa Greenfield. I personally feel that both candidates are notable enough to warrant inclusion, and my initial concern was one of fairness and consistency, which has now been addressed. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 23:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I don't see an issue with OP's reasoning here, and so far as prior notability is concerned, we don't give every 40 under 40 in a state a notability pass. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 21:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both are in fact notable. I'll be voting against James in a few weeks, but there is massive coverage of him. Far, far over the WP:N bar. There are things like [1] which cover his previous work as a president of a large(ish) company. Places like the Jewish News have interviewed him. Politico has significant coverage in the last day [2]. There is coverage in the Washington Post, NYT, WSJ, and probably every other major news source in the US and plenty outside of it. Hobit (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My preference is to redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Michigan as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates for U.S. Senate. My hesitation in commenting is that a) the subject was also the Republican nominee for the same office in 2018 so there is no obvious redirect target and 2) we are now less than three weeks to the election. At this point, there is value in holding off on closing the discussion until we know if the subject will be notable based upon the results. --Enos733 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination smells of "revenge"—if Theresa Greenfield can't have an article, then he shouldn't either! I strongly believe both are notable, as evidenced by an abundance of significant coverage. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The motivation behind opening this AfD does not change the fact that this article is not notable per WP:NPOL. We need to apply policy consistently. Transcendence (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Transcendence: Your delete vote ~~and subsequent WP:BADGERing~~ reeks of the same failure the nominator made. Unfortunately for your position, Theresa Greenfield has been determined to be notable, so I suggest you withdraw your comments and reassess your understanding of WP:GNG. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Tavix: I suggest you read WP:BADGER again before you make baseless accusations that "reek" of incivility. Not only did I restrict all but one of my responses to open questions, I did not reply to the vast majority of comments that disagreed with me. I only replied to your comment because it is a blatant appeal to emotion rather than policy. Attempting to label my responses here as WP:BADGERing is beyond the pale. Not only that, the language you choose to use is "reeks of the same failure the nominator made", "Unfortunately for your position", "reassess your understanding". My response to you was quite professional. Yours however violates many of WP:CIVIL: "Try not to get too intense.", "Be professional", "Avoid name-calling", "Avoid condescension.", "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment." You're an admin. Do better. Transcendence (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Rather, the first sentence of my vote was a direct response to the WP:POINTy nomination statement that ran afoul of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. The second sentence, and really the only important one, was a direct appeal to the language of WP:GNG, which is the relevant guideline (notability is governed by guidelines, not policy) per the last bit of WP:NPOL. In your replies to me, you seem to latch on to unimportant parts of my comments, so in an effort of goodwill, I have retracted that particular phrase. What is important is that your tit-for-tat deletion stance no longer holds any water because Theresa Greenfield has been deemed notable. Since you mention that you wish to be consistent with Greenfield, it would now only be consistent for you to withdraw your vote. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Withdrawing my vote for an AfD that is already withdrawn doesn't seem to have any point. Transcendence (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The nominator withdrew their opinion—the AfD itself is still open. The AfD cannot be withdrawn while there are still outstanding delete votes. See WP:WITHDRAW for more details. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        That section is labeled "Early closure" so it doesn't apply anymore. This AfD has already been open for more than 168 hours. Quite frankly, I don't know why someone doesn't already just close this AfD as Keep. Transcendence (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for public office are not notable. If James wins the election, then he will be notable, not before. I do have to say though that the reasoning is false. The coverage on Mr. James is about Mr. James and not impacted by whether we have significant enough coverage on other candidates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You state that as if we have a policy or guideline that makes it clear that "unelected candidates for public office are not notable". Could you clarify where that is documented or if this is simply how you think it should work? Hobit (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Policy is WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." James is not notable under WP:GNG, only for his candidacies. Transcendence (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates for senate either are, or are not notable, tertium non datur. There is no standard that would justify deleting Greenfield's page and keeping James'. Tkjanacek (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page has been here for several months, possibly years I haven't checked. No reason to delete this just weeks before the election. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the last poster noted, there is no reason to delete the article now. Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC) — Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep for now, If the article of a major party nominee is removed just before the election, a credible case could be made for election interference, and Wikipedia could be seen as giving a donation in kind to James opponent, which is not a good idea of Wikipedia wants to keep its non profit status

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmcewenjr (talk • contribs) 14:32, October 18, 2020 (UTC)

Keep there are sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG.--User:Namiba 16:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's only really notable for being an unelected candidate, which goes against our policies. We can always restore the page if he wins, keeping it because the election is apparently close violates our notability principles. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which policy? There is no applicable policy AFAICT. There are applicable guidelines, but I don't think any of them say that either. Could you clarify what you are referring to? Hobit (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Candidates who are only covered in the scope of their elections are often deleted by failing a number of different notability grounds. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here because he ran in a couple elections, but there are also WP:NOTNEWS (on the grounds that you can't make yourself notable) and WP:10YT concerns which are typically argued for most candidates, and WP:PROMO and WP:CRYSTAL concerns for candidates who are running but who might not be notable after the election as applies here. If this doesn't get deleted, I guess it can be revisited in a few years if he doesn't do anything else notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand the pretense, however the OP's intentions call foul to me here. I concur with Tavix that it isn't built on solid ground, it's more "an eye for an eye" than any preexisting Wikipedia policy. As such, I cannot vote to "Delete" on this specific proposal, possibly on a succeeding one. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - My point is that there is no on-point policy or guidelines that says what you say. At best it is an interpretation of policy. That's not at all what you made it sound like. Hobit (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right there's not anything directly "on point", but I am arguing the traditional custom of how these sorts of AfDs tend to play out (which is based in the policies I mentioned above, especially once these sorts of elections finish). SportingFlyer T·C 12:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Policy is WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." James is not notable under WP:GNG, only for his candidacies.Transcendence (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - What part of the GNG is not met? I'd like a quote that applies if you could, because it doesn't say anything about that as far as I can see. Hobit (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until the election in 14 days. Durindaljb (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Michigan. The page can easily be restored if he wins. KidAd talk 23:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As another editor pointed out, James previously ran in 2018 for the Senate, so I don't believe we're be able to do that. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Y'all deleted the article for Theresa Greenfield per WP:NPOL because she is not notable for anything besides being a candidate. Well the exact same thing applies here so please be consistent. He clearly is not notable for anything other than his candidacy as the vast majority of the coverage is for his candidacies. He is simply not notable under WP:GNG. As such, it falls to WP:NPOL and it is clear that we delete articles for unelected candidates because they are not notable under WP:NPOL. Transcendence (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, very few of the contributors here were involved in Greenfield's article deletion and as such we have no idea how'd they would've voted on that discussion, so there's no need to "be consistent" when making our decisions here. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination seems obviously POINT-y, though I do agree with the point. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: a relevant discussion is happening at WP:AN#Towards_closure. I'll also link that discussion here. Hobit (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the notability of press coverage, it should be mentioned that the majority of references used are from local news sources. Beyond that, his national press coverage is relatively minor, with some of the articles only mentioning James in passing.Big chumshot (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.