Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey (5th nomination)

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. Consensus that the article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Sharkey

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

It is with great sadness that I put this artice up for deletion again. Even though I once nominated it and vehemently supported deleting it, the article's notability has grown on me during the good article nomination. However, Sharkey has requested that the article be deleted due to claims make against him on the talk page. I would suggest deleting it, because keeping it will only cause more trouble. SOXROX (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I cantparticipate in the discussion right now and probably will not communicate for a while. I'm taking a wikibreak- Look at my user page for more details. SOXROX (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—"will only cause more trouble" doesn't seem to me to be a valid reason for deletion. dude's clearly notable, both from sources in article and from google news search, which suggests that dozens more could be added. perhaps subject of article could read up on streisand effect and if he still wants to, take his problems with the talk page to an oversighter?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. While I'm obviously sad to be put in this position, we do have a policy to delete articles on living subjects if they ask us to. And Sharkey has clearly expressed that desire. Difluoroethene (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Keep Sorry Jonathon, but you're clearly notable (per Alf.laylah.wa.laylah), and you don't get to control the content of your own Wikipedia entry. Difluoroethene (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry... where exactly is this deletion-on-subject's-request policy? That seems inconceivable to me. EEng (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

question—is it something other than

WP:BLPDEL? because i don't see that that one applies here, with all the sources that there are. if there is unsourced negative info, it ought to be a prod rather than an afd?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

How can it be PROD? It's the fifth AFD nom! SOXROX (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's what the wp:blp says; afd is to decide if subject's notable. if there are unsourced negative statements it should be prod until they're sourced. i can't find any other policy that says delete articles on people just because the people don't like them, which is why i'm asking you if i'm missing something.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy. Silver seren^C 06:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're right; I remembered wrong. One of the criteria for speedy deletion is if the author of the article requests deletion; I mistakenly believed that also applied to the subject of the article. I guess it doesn't. Difluoroethene (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sharkey is a public figure. He's run for state and national office, has sat on Republican Party committees, has participated in numerous TV and radio interviews, has been detailed in a documentary film. He's participated in promoting his own image on Wikipedia. He requested that the current picture of himself be used, for example. It's too bad if he doesn't like that some of the attention he gets isn't to his liking; Wikipedia shouldn't be a PR machine. Just because some of his claims in the past are now being discussed and he doesn't like them doesn't seem like a reason to eliminate the entry.PurityOfEssence (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree with you, Wikipedia should not be a PR machine. So why is the fact that he gave his own photo

relevant?--Screwball23 talk 04:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just pointing out that Sharkey is apparently ok with having this article exists as long as he can control it's content. Now that there's talk of including things in it that he doesn't like, he's asked for a deletion. I don't think that this is how Wikipedia should work.PurityOfEssence (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support deletion - The majority of the sources on Sharkey are primary sources. There were over 200 FEC-filed candidates in the 2012 presidential field - not necessarily actively campaigning - I might add. We do not use original research to write Wikipedia, and we absolutely do not want to defame or post incorrect information. I personally have been active on the WikiProject ProWrestling and I know for a fact that only the WWE, TNA, and ROH performers are listed; others, especially on the indy scene, have written their own articles at times (despite the fact that they aren't even on TV and probably didn't even win a championship) and there simply is no strong reason for it. Yes, there are indy wrestlers that have their own pages, but the wrestling career of many wrestlers is usually promotional or fancruft, which are also against wikipedia. Also, we are writing an encyclopedia that is supposed to be historical, not news. In this case, this page is not even news. I thought I dealt with this before when I took down a number of pathetic attempts to put him on the list of Republican candidates. If this page is so notable that people are supposed to be reading it in 10 years (see the 10 year test), why have there been so many nominations for deletion? It is just ridiculous. I mean, if I could, I would take this page down immediately and close the discussion.--Screwball23 talk 04:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, true about the primary sources, but that should be fixed by editing. take out anything that's supported by a primary source and there are still enough sources to easily pass the gng. there could be 2 million fec filed candidates, but this one has a bunch of newspaper articles about him, so he's notable. how many nominations there've been for deletion can't be relevant. anyone can nominate an article any time. if having 4 afds that ended in keep meant delete, george bush would be gone too. the 10 year test is an essay, not policy.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The number of AfDs is actually very telling, yes, it is very telling that the community considers the subject notable and that there are occasionally singular editors who disagree. The community ceremonially tells those editors that they are incorrect, time and time again. Silver seren^C 05:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further question, were you involved in the talk page discussion or in one of the past Afds? Silver seren^C 06:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. The experience I'm referring to was about Jonathan Sharkey's inclusion on the list of GOP candidates. I fought a bitter edit war with some really hard-headed editors to get him off that page. Sharkey simply did not run a real candidacy, and honestly, just from the length of our debate, he probably gained more web traffic from wikipedia than he ever would receive in the real world. Simply put, the meat of that discussion was about what compromised a "campaign" and what compromised a "notable" campaign. We found that he was good at doing paperwork with the FEC, but did not run a true "campaign" in terms of TV/radio ads, meeting voters on the campaign trail, raising donations, etc. In the modern day, a lot of people can run a blog campaign for presidency, and that is what I suspect was the case there. In any case, we found he was not a notable candidate, which we knew beforehand, and accordingly minimized his presence on the page. If you check the page, he is still listed as a withdrawn presidential candidate.--Screwball23 talk 07:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is quite clear that there are a significant amount of sources discussing him (even if a lot of primary sources are used in the article, there are many more secondary sources available to add). He is notable for a number of different reasons, all described in the lede and all of which has received individually coverage. The nominator's reasoning is baffling. All of the past AfDs have closed as Keep, clearly showing community consensus on the subject. If the subject of the article has issues with it and feels that it is being non-neutrally written, then that is something that we need to fix by editing out the offending, non-neutral info, but deleting his article is not the proper way to go about this. Silver seren^C 05:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, like I've said before, the coverage does not reflect on him but rather his eccentric candidacy as part of an overall trend. The overall trend should have an article, but not necessarily Sharkey himself. He personally wants the article to be deleted. As a non-notable figure, we should grant him this wish.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: Were you involved in the talk page discussion or one of the past Afds? Silver seren^C 06:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see that you were. The nominator has been contacting a significant number of people and it's a little concerning. But as long as you were actually involved, it's okay. Silver seren^C 06:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Usually I support marginally-notable BLP deletions when the subject wishes it, but this person has simply received too much coverage for too many things to legitimately be considered "marginal". The perennial candidacies, wrestling the vampirism, the arrests, the controversies with underaged girls. There is a story to be found regarding his military career as well, but it seems that needs more sourcing before it can be addressed.
WP:GNG is satisfied, above and beyond. Tarc (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient notability established through independent sources. "He wants it gone" isn't a valid deletion rationale. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is
WP:NOTCENSORED, if you're a public figure with verifiable facts in the public record, "I don't want a page" isn't good enough to have a page taken down. We're not Italy (yet). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Per GaryColemanFan et al above. Enough reliable mainstream sources exist. He iro 23:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been nominated enough times for deletion, and has been voted to be kept, to see that it has been clearly established that this person is notable enough for a page. Just because one user has decided to change their mind (even if it is Sharkey himself) does not mean the whole of 5 previous consensuses should be turned on their heads.Thunderstone99 (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable from all the sources. --GRuban (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has not gotten less notable since the last nomination.
Qwertyus 19:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep meets
Stuartyeates (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I don`t think semi-protection is needed. He dropped out of the race in late August and there has only been 3 IP edits in the last two a half weeks.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, He is notable. There is significant coverage of him in multiple reliable sources. GB fan 02:30, 16 October 2011 (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.