Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Paul Jenkins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 17:57, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John_Paul_Jenkins

This page has no potential to become encyclopedic. 80.41.143.83 02:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Subject and centre of a prominent media scandal in the Welsh Assembly Election, 2003. Only Conservative on council for the fourth-largest county in Wales. Samaritan 03:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Strangely encyclopedic for an article that allegedly has "no potential to become encyclopedic".--Centauri 03:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possible autobiography. Orphan. Are we going to have aricles on every person sitting on any government council for every settlement in the world? No. Just isn't notable. -R. fiend 03:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes. Eventually.--Centauri 05:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Come on, do you honestly think that Wikipedia is going to have council memebrs for the tiniest remotest settlements in the world? Or that that's even an aim? Who'd update them daily? Where would people even get the information to do that? Are they any more notable than the guy who owns the local laundomat? We're talking hundreds of thousands of people who hold some sort of official position some sort of minor government body, not to mention school boards. We still don't even have articles for every member of the House of Representatives. Of course, you want to keep the principal of every high school as well. -R. fiend 07:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • That the House info is incomplete is entirely irrelevant. Because people are working on some pages of Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean they're diverting their efforts from other pages. Everyone works on what they're interested in, and only what they're interested in. - dcljr 10:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • I only mentioned the House to give an idea of what a pipe dream including every elected official in the world is. By the time we have the House complete there will probably be a new House (although with the incumbent re-election rates it won't be terribly "new"). I admit this guy may be notable enough for an article (I haven't competely changed my mind) but this idea of including any person who won an election (or lost, some people want to have articles for losing candidates as well) anywhere at any time is silly. -R. fiend 17:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • No, we aren't. The local councillors whom I vote for do a good job, but what they do is only relevant to a few thousand people, if that. I'd vote against encyclopaedia articles on them if their jobs were all that could be said about them. Unfortunately for those who also serve by keeping their eyes on vandalism and litter, politicians who are involved in scandals that reach national news outlets do rate the encyclopaedia articles, if only barely. TINJ. There's a lot of padding in this article, too. Weak Keep and send to Cleanup. Uncle G 14:44, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Keep. How is he not notable? He is the only Tory councilor for a large constituency in Wales, and was the centre of at least a moderatly well known scandal. We have articles on many Canadian politicians holding similar positions. Rje 04:12, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. His age alone is almost worthy of notability. Could use a bit more expansion with regards to the scandal if in fact it was as major a news event as Samaritan says. 23skidoo 04:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Barely notable. --JuntungWu 09:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If there was a controversy surrounding his previous candidacy, people may come to Wikipedia for NPOV information on him. That's what I do when I want NPOV information on anything or anyone controversial. --Angr 09:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to me it's already encyclopedic. Just because an article is short or very specific doesn't mean it's bad or useless. - dcljr 10:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Philip 15:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems like the most notable thing he did was say something construed as homophobic on a blog which later came back to bite him politically. Regrettable, but not particularly notable. --RoySmith 18:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Other than a single off comment (which he doesn't take full responsibility for) not notable or notorious. --LeeHunter 19:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 22:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough for me, for being the sole conservative representetive on two councils - particularly age 24. Carmarthenshire isn't some insignificant island nobody has heard of, but a significant area of south-west Wales. Thryduulf 23:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepThe facts in this article could be of use to someone, so i see no reason to get rid of it. bakuzjw (aka 578) 23:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You have failed only to explain how an encyclopedia can contain information that is not factual.--Centauri 22:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep (as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy), bogus nomination - David Gerard 22:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I thought this might get listed by the author at some point (look at the similarities in all the IP addresses used, including the one at the top of this page) but I haven't been keeping an eye on it. The author, who I initially thought was John Paul Jenkins himself but claims to be someone close to him seems to object to the idea that creating a Wikipedia article doesn't give you the right to keep unwanted facts out of it, in this case the only thing that makes this man notable: his (alleged) homophobic comments. I recommend a look at the article history and the talk page where I have tried to engage in discussion with the rather reticent author of the article. I have also made efforts to NPOV it and I intend to do some digging and write a bit more on what Jenkins is alleged to have said and the controversy that ensued. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why would anyone want to delete this? Good article, subject a local politician of some notoriety. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: this looks likely to be hugely more encyclopedia-worthy than, say, anything whatever in List of vehicles in Star Wars. But I still don't see anything noteworthy about this man. Welsh tories are indeed rare, but what has he done about it? He's made homophobic comments in an internet chat room, which is routine behavior for young right-wing twits, and then claimed that they were taken out of context, which is ditto. His campaign slogan was as vacuous as they come: is anyone going to respond, "No, lying down with Llanelli!"? He strikes me merely as a young right-wing nonentity. Tell me something he's done, and I'll vote "keep". -- Hoary 00:14, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. One on many tens of thousands of councillors and alledged comments were of mere local noteworthyness. -Tedmcshed 01:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • (This user's only contribution.)
  • Keep, notoriety, notability, already a well written article. Megan1967 04:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I want to say keep as an example of what one should expect from people of such political persuasion... but he is just a local councillor. And there are thousands and thousands of them. And most, I imagine, have opened their mouths to change feet on more than one occassion. Carmarthenshire deserves better entries than this!

  • Keep. Neutralitytalk 22:27, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Keep It might be of use to someone and it's encyclopedic. If there's room for the hobbyist posts, then surely there is room for this. Junes 23:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.