Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Georges

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 No consensus to delete. Actually, I feel like both parties here have presented fairly weak arguments seldom going beyond "he's notable"/"no he's not". Still, it has been clearly established that there has been sufficient third-party coverage to consider at least a short article on the subject. The tone is not hopelessly problematic and a bit of pruning and careful use of third-party references should get the job done. Pascal.Tesson 17:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Georges

John Georges (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Reads like a resume, the majority of sources are from his personal website. Wikipedia is not a political campaign website and possibly fails CSD A7 (notability) and G11 (vanity/ advertising) Rackabello 06:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think my article deserves to stand. Exactly how is it like a resume? I think I was neutral. The candidate is noteworthy as he is challenging the front runner, Bobby Jindal. I doubt he will win but that is beside the point. The speed with which you flagged for deletion makes me wonder if you actually read the article.

• • Reply I did read the article and I felt that it was promotional in tone. Writing about a political candidate is fine, but the position statements sound like they came out of a campaign website, and that's not appropriate for an encyclopedia Rackabello 06:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE - not notable.TrevASLer 06:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Not notable? Why? Justify your statement. I justify my article because he is an announced candidate for governor in Louisiana and has received some press attention. After he starts his media blitz on Labor Day his notability may become clearer. There was a red link on the governor's election page, so I wrote an article. I searched the news and found what I could. So far he has garnered little attention but that will likely change when he starts his TV ads. I have no association with his campaign and no plans to vote for him. I teach Louisiana Studies and when I see a red link on a Louisiana topic I try to do something about it. He is not the only candidate I have written about.

If he were one of two announced candidates in a major party in New York or California would he be notable? If the article seems promotional it come from no sympathy on my part but from the fact that I just did not have much information beyond the candidate's web site. In the early stages of a race that is to be expected. I have no interest in promoting John Georges but many students will go to Wikipedia for information on the election (whether I like that or not) so I am trying to fill in the gaps.

I could have written that about all he has done as a candidate is contribute to his own campaign and shoot some commercials. I could have written that his entire platform is ridiculously centered on New Orleans and he seems to have forgotten the rest of the state above Baton Rouge. But I thought that might be too biased.

• Comment Just because someone announced a candidacy doesn't make them automatically notable. Rackabello 08:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If you struggled to find sources other than his website, that's pretty good evidence that he's not in fact notable: see WP:BIO. Of course it's possible that he might become notable at some time in the future; if so that will be the time to write an article, not before. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Iain99 10:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral While the article reads like an advertisement, this guy is notable from a google news search. Corpx 16:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• First, I would recommend a complete rewrite of this article as it is written as an advertisement and possibly a campaign flyer. Other then that no vote. Although, it doesn't meet the WP:BIO criteria just yet.--JForget 23:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

HE announced his candidacy AND put in $5 million. That's a little different. How you read promotion into the article is beyond me. Is this coastal bias, political bias, Post-Ron-Paul syndrome, or just trolling on your part? I have seen articles in Wikipedia about minor characters on cartoons (e.g., Meatwad); are those more notable than a candidate for governor with a $5 million war chest?

Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meatwad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.E.L.P.eR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Werner_%C3%9Cnderbheit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap-Jaw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Jim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_%28G.I._Joe%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hordak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/She-Ra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzlor

I have also noticed some non-notable articles on opera (seriously, who listens to opera in private?):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_mondo_della_luna

Shall I go on? I hope my article does not put too much strain in the servers but it seems like there are far less notable articles that you could go delete.

I added some negative comments under the positions header; hope that helps.

Comment I disagree with your statement about opera. First of all, it isn't a valid argument in the context of this discussion. Notability standards for opera and political candidates are quite different, and I can't quote them off-hand but there are policies on Wikipedia supporting that. This is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, I think you're attempting to compare apples and oranges here.

Additionally, Just because a particular opera isn't performed on a regular basis doesn't mean that its not notable. And even if its not notable on its own, its written by a composer who is certainly notable. Joseph Haydn is along with Mozart and Beethoven one of the most prominent classical era composers. If you don't believe me then I invite you to nominate Il mondo della luna for AfD and see how the discussion turns out.

Concerning your statement that no one listens to opera, many critics still consider opera is still a viable format that people frequently listen to (attendance at Opera Houses such as the Met and the San Francisco Opera are strong, and there is still a good number of voice students training to be opera singers at schools such as Julliard, NYU, NEC, and Ithaca College ) and new traditional and experimental operas are still being written, often using the opera format while combining with unique or non-traditional musical styles.

Know what you're talking about before you make assertions like this. If you'd like, we can continue this discussion on my talk page. Cheers Rackabello 19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional keep if a rewrite is done. One 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional keep: needs more about his life and stuff like that but he is at least notable now, and after the election, if he loses he can be deleted. Comedy240 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you know so much about opera why not stick to those articles and leave the serious stuff like politics and history to people trained in those fields? I have a B.A. in history from Samford University and an MSW from LSU. I have taken upper level and graduate courses in Southern History. I teach Louisiana Studies. I have a better idea of what is notable here than you do, just as I am sure you know more about obsolete and obscure musical forms than I ever want to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Didaskalos (talk • contribs)

Leave the serious stuff to people trained in those fields? I've been trying to assume good faith, but college professor or not, I feel that some of your recent comments in this discussion have been extremely immature and that a few are personal attacks, not to mention unprofessional for a college professor. You've accused me and other contributers in this discussion of trolling and being anti-south. I listed this article to argue that its written tone and notability were not in line with Wikipedia policy. Several editors agreed with me. We're simply attempting to come to a consensus as to whether this article is eligible for inclusion at this time or not, we're not personally against this gubernatorial candidate or Louisiana, which is what you've implied. Secondly, you've made negative statements concerning opera (which has no connection with this deletion discussion) that I felt were directed at me and trying to paint me as weird and incompetent for enjoying and performing a musical art form that you personally don't like and view as strange, obscure, obsolete and not notable. I respect your opinion if you don't like opera, but those statements were not appropriate in the context of this discussion, nor for Wikipedia in general. If you have an issue with opera being included in this encyclopedia, that's fine, but discuss it at WP:WPO, not here. Finally, I resent your assertion that because I'm a musician and not a college professor, political analyst, or historian that I have no right to be commenting on articles such as this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia edited by its users, for better or for worse, and the idea is that we all attempt to improve it and contribute to it to the best that we can. Everyone can contribute in some small way, not just "experts." I'm actually also quite interested in politics and law as well as music, and I think I as well as anyone else with these interests have just as much a right to contribute as you do. Seriously, I think you should read the five pillars of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia etiquette because I wonder if you truly understand some of the fundamental underlying principles of this project. Users who make personal attacks can be blocked, comment on content, not the contributer.

Peace - D. Owen Brandenburg, tenor aka Rackabello 04:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - He's not notatble for anything other than his current campaign. --Tdl1060 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Doesn't matter if he's notable for anything other than his current campaign -- he's still notable. Joseph Antley 02:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Simply being a candidate doesn't make one automatically notable, and that's besides the fact there are still problems with tone and POV in this article Rackabello 12:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Georges is a major Republican candidate in the election. If the problems with tone and POV, which I don't really see (it resembles almost every other article of a politician currently running in tone, as far as I can tell) then fix the tone and POV. We don't delete articles because they aren't NPOV. Joseph Antley 19:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Back to your comment about Georges' notability, he doesn't meet the notability criteria spelled out in WP:BIO. It says that for politicians to be considered notable, they must have held (not running for) an office or been a part of a legislative body at a level above a city or county (i.e. state, provincial, territorial, national, United Nations) OR have been a local figure with substantial press coverage. The only way he might pass WP:BIO is through the second criteria, but considering that the majority of sources come from his own website, I have yet to see any substantial press coverage Rackabello 05:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I agree, this is a vanity page and all the "references" are either blogs or the subject's own website. In other words. Our standard is for third party sources, and non-trivial ones at that. RFerreira 01:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• very weak keep. Subject is barely notable - without spending lots of money to run for governor, he'd probably fail. But he's gotten lots of coverage in-state for his campaign, and he's been on the Louisiana Board of Regents, which is somewhat significant. He's also gotten one out-of-state media mention. I'd really prefer to see more than one outside mention, but I'm sure that will come sooner or later. Argyriou (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2007 (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.