Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sho Dozono

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, per consensus. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sho Dozono

Sho Dozono (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This is an article about a mayoral candidate of Portland, Oregon. Unless he wins the election, he doesn't meet the guidelines set at WP:BIO. If he wins, the article can be re-created. howcheng {chat} 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep He meets BIO's significant coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete He does not meet BIO's significant coverage. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Those seem to be local, and to be about the same couple of events, repeated many times. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It says delete them if they don't receive significant third party coverage. It's basically saying that if third party coverage is not found, then they have to be a winner. That's not this situation. The example AfD is of someone who didn't receive third party coverage. Still not seeing the parallel. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What is Dozono known for? Running for mayor, and being denied some public funding? And the reason I linked Mark Clarke (politician)'s AfD was because of the sentiment expressed there that Wikipedia should not become a PR outlet for every political candidate in the world. Politicians are held to a post-election standard for that reason. If he had 88 Google news hits for being an artist I would not be arguing. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We'll just agree to disagree then, I guess. Playing devil's advocate, the only policy/guideline based reason I can see for deletion is that he's part of a transient news story (I forget what guideline deals with that). I think that the coverage has spanned a sufficient amount of time for his inclusion though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - notable if 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.' Seems notable to me, but only just. ChessCreator (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, per WP:N and the presence of significant coverage by third party sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Note that User:Sarcasticidealist changed WP:N WP:BIO for politicians with little input a few days ago, possibly without understanding the consequences of opening the floodgates to politicians and their PR machines. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I changed WP:BIO, not WP:N, and all I did was clarified that local politicians and unelected candidates are still notable if they meet WP:N, which I can't imagine that anybody would dispute (Rudy Guliani being the most extreme example). And I did so after soliciting feedback on the talk page. In any event, discussion is ongoing at WT:BIO. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Rudy Guilani was a notable DA before he was a mayoral candidate. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Are you going to seriously claim that if he hadn't been, he wouldn't belong in Wikipedia? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
            • In the Guiliani article it says, "In 1983, Giuliani was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. It was in this position that he first gained national prominence by prosecuting numerous high-profile cases, resulting in the convictions of Wall Street figures Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken for insider trading." Therefore he became notable then, and if Wikipedia had existed then, he would have been kept at AfD. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Sure. But if he hadn't ever held that position, are you saying he'd be deleted at AFD? If his only claims to notability were being the mayor of New York City and being a major candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, would you favour deleting him? Of course not: that's why the ultimate barometer of notability is coverage received by reliable sources, and not some one size fits all criteria of what titles you've held. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject is covered multiple times in verifiable, reliable sources and notability is asserted. It doesn't matter whether he's a politician or an artist, the information within can be sourced and thus this article should be kept. Celarnor Talk to me 07:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete While its true that there has been significant coverage in the Portland area regarding this mayoral candidate, this really is a WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E if I've ever seen one. The article is very clear that he has absolutely no political experience and appeared out of nowhere. Given this, it's clear that almost anyone in Portland can run for its mayor and that would immediately garner that person several articles about them from the local media. However, that does not automatically make them notable enough for Wikipedia in my view. If this person doesn't win the election, he won't even be notable in Portland a year from now, let alone 100 years from now. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 08:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a fair argument; in light of it, I'd be quite satisfied with a merge of the relevant information into a Portland municipal election, 2008 article or something similar, in keeping with the spirit of "cover the event, not the person". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not a fair argument. Dozono is also the owner of the official governmental travel agency (Azumano Travel) for the city of Portland and the state of Oregon, and would be notable as a prominent businessman otherwise. It's not dependent on whether he wins the race or not. VanTucky 18:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that owning a local travel agency, even if one of its customers is the city, makes one notable for Wikipedia. If the travel agency doesn't meet the WP:CORP notability requirements (and it doesn't), then its owner by sheer virtue of being its owner isn't notable either. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You show your ignorance of the subject by calling Azumano a "local" agency. Azumano has offices and agents in many states, and operates heavily in Asia, especially Japan. It's at least a regional business, contracted officially by the state of Oregon and the city of Portland. It's not your local travel agency. VanTucky 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... You're arguing that he is only notable for one event. Would that be this event or this event or this series of multiple events? Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm striking my !vote in light of the new expanded article with citations. But let me just say for the record that I strongly object to the tone of this debate. I personally feel that certain individuals here are attempting to browbeat others into submission and that's something that is just not constructive for this encyclopedia. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 01:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although I'm reluctant to extend ourselves into local political races, this is a large city whose mayors are, I think, notable. As a candidate that still does not include the subject, but there has been a court case involving campaign funding law. Shinmawa argues that "anyone" could run, but the current mayor has endorsed this candidate, meaning he isn't a nobody. I think that combines with the case to achieve notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added some information about his "Flight for Freedom" and "Flight for Friendship" activities to boost the tourist industries after 9/11, the tsunami, and Katrina. These include significant non-local (to Oregon) coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 11:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom., WP:BIO#Politicians and ShinmaWa. JohnCD (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a silly debate. I can't edit the article without violating WP:COI or appearing conflicted, but the idea that Dozono is not sufficiently notable is just plain wrong. I think it must come of people thinking that his notability results from running for mayor. It doesn't. It comes from 20-30 years of being one of the most prominent businessmen in one of the larger cities in North America. here is some coverage from one of the local papers; here is coverage from another. This debate is a waste of time; Dozono is clearly notable. The only problem is that his notability is not clearly articulated in the present version of the article. -Pete (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What's your COI? I would think you could edit this without any COI. It's not because you edit Oregon articles is it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry -- I'm on the Citizen Campaign Commission. The recommendations we make to City Council impact city elections, so I'm not editing articles on candidates in those races. -Pete (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, there are plenty of sources, and they are spread out over time covering different aspects of the subject. So not a one-time event. If he meets WP:N then WP:BIO doesn't matter. Hobit (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It doesn't get more notable for a local, city politician: he and Sam Adams are unequivocally the front runners in the race, and there is scads of reliable press coverage. As owner of the official state travel agency, Dozono would be notable even if he loses the election. Again, what about scads and scads of reliable new coverage from multiple sources doesn't meet WP:BIO? VanTucky 18:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Out of those "scads and scads" of sources, the vast majority are all tied to his mayoral campaign. Ergo, WP:BLP1E. If he wins, then he should probably have an article. howcheng {chat} 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • You seem to have missed one of my main points. Whether or not he is a candidate, he is one of the most prominent Portland businessmen and the owner of the official state/city travel agency, as well as being heavily involved in notabl civic and charity endeavors. He's notable whether or not he wins. VanTucky 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Portland isn't New York City. Running for office is not inherently notable. Races get covered by local media. Candidates are a dime a dozen. even if he were elected, Portland is on the fringes of notability as far as mayors are concerned. DarkAudit (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You seem to have missed one of my main points. Whether or not he is a candidate, he is one of the most prominent Portland businessmen and the owner of the official state/city travel agency, as well as being heavily involved in notabl civic and charity endeavors. He's notable whether or not he wins. VanTucky 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The fringes of notability? You have got to be kidding. Portland has 570,000 residents, about the size of Boston. The metro is 2.3 million, about the size of Denver. You really need to take a look at Lists of mayors by country#United States.Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Because this article comes during the mayoral election and casts Dozono in such a favorable light, it strikes me an effort to generate a positive web presence for Dozono as a candidate. Were this a balanced article, it would explore Dozono's more sinister fiscal history and connections to Japanese interests, as shown in this article in the Willamette Week. Gobonobo T C 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Then edit the article.... Balance is rarely an issue for an AfD as it can be fixed. Hobit (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to have some of the content from Willamette Week translated in to suitable article content. Dozono certainly is a controversial candidate in some circles, but I didn't know best how to handle it. Please feel free to add it. That said, concerns about POV are not a valid deletion argument. VanTucky 02:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP notability standards for politicians. If he not only wins the election, but also takes office, then he will merit the article. The argument that he should have an article just because he's a "big businessman" in Portland is also fallacious. "Big" and "small" are relative terms and it could just as easily be argued that he is a "big businessman" in a "small town" or a "small businessman" in a "small town" or a "small businessman" in a "big town." None of this would make him notable by WP standards. As for his being the owner of a "government travel agency," that strikes me more as weird than notable. What kind of local politics allows one man to profit from all of a city's official travel? What do the citizens of Portland think about this arrangement? Is there any evidence out there that this arrangement has ever caused controversy? If so, then I would say he is notable for that and that alone. Qworty (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • To answer your last question: if he is elected mayor he has to give up being ceo/owner. VanTucky 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That doesn't answer my question. I want to know if there has ever been any public controversy/scandal associated with the fact that one private citizen--who now wants to be mayor--has profited from all official government travel. Has it ever been alleged that financial/political improriety has led to this highly unusual arrangement? If he has ever been the focus of controversy/scandal involving this matter, then he may be notable on that basis, and I may be persuaded to change my vote (on the AfD--not for mayor!). Qworty (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • His ownership of Azumano is controversial in some of its business dealings, especially in Japan. But it's not controversial that he owns a state and city-contracted company. It's basically an assumed fact that he must give up his position in the company if elected. It's not really that controversial. But, as you can read in the article, he is hardly without controversy in other areas. VanTucky 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep. People, seriously -- the first few paragraphs of this 2002 article (which, of course, has nothing to do with a 2008 candidacy) are easily enough to establish notability. The article mentions two awards, which are specifically cited in the notability guideline at WP:BIO. It mentions three of his specific actions, as early as 1996, that drew widespread notice. It mentions that another publication referred to him as "Mr. Portland." It also questions his abilities as a businessman, suggesting that his apparent successes have resulted from bailouts. It also makes the case that he made a "serious breaches of his fiduciary duty" to a young child. The combination of positive and negative points form a good foundation for writing a neutral article. But there's more. The two links I provided before show two publications that have covered him multiple times for multiple years and on multiple issues -- within and outside the context of his current run. The Oregonian, the regional paper of record, has covered him many more times going back to 1987, though its archives are not available online without a fee. The Columbian, across the border in Washington, as covered him a number of times, and even the Seattle Times, in a city a couple hours away has covered him. So has the Boston Globe. Here is another link, showing news coverage in multiple publications from 1999-2000, 2001, 2002, 2004-05, and 2007. Co-founder of the Portland Schools Foundation. Sponsor of charitable efforts reaching New York City, New Orleans, and Thailand. Influential figure in international business, in bringing international flight back to Portland "International" Airport.
It's fine if people who don't know about the guy aren't interested, but really, if you're going to go to the trouble of !voting "delete," you should look at the evidence presented, and you should look at the relevant policies and guidelines. I'll repeat: the present article can use more work to more clearly establish the guy's notability. It won't take much work, and I hope it gets done soon. But the fact that the article is a bit weighted toward recent events is not a valid reason for deletion. -Pete (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry to much about it. We're looking at a "no consensus" at the worst. I will say that I wish you would edit the article though. If you do, leave a note on the talk page about your COI (conflict of interest) so I (and everyone) can look at your edits and make sure they're from a neutral point of view. I've seen your work before Pete and I think you can edit it impartially. If not, I (and other Oregonions) will whip your contribs into shape. Well summarized references always speak louder than hypothetical refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Peregrine, I appreciate the vote of confidence very much. Unfortunately I have to consider more than just Wikipedia's policies, I need to avoid any appearance of COI outside of WP as well. However I'm confident that you're right, and at some point somebody will pick up on a couple of the points raised here, add a sentence or two to the lead and another citation or two, and even the most adamant proponents of deletion will have nothing left to base their argument on. Until some of this stuff goes from this discussion into the article, people will continue to make the mistaken assumption that since the notability isn't spelled out in the article itself, it doesn't exist. -Pete (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I have looked at the evidence presented, much of which isn't in the article, and I'm still not persuaded. It's all just local stuff. So a local reporter at a small paper said six years ago that someone should consider calling this guy "Mr. Portland." I'm sorry, but notability requires a lot more than that. There are hundreds of thousands of local businessmen profiled in small papers. And many of them have "awards" that are little better than plaques from the local Kiwanis Club or whatever. We're not going to have articles about all of these people, and this one should go too. Qworty (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you understand notability and multiple coverage in reliable sources? It sounds like you've found a way to judge these sources beyond what's stated in WP:RS. Apparently "local" is a missing criteria from NOTE? Please elaborate on each source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The burden of notability is not on me. The burden is on the "keep" side to provide each source and explain how each source supposedly contributes to notability. Qworty (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No? If he's the subject of multiple articles from reliable sources he's notable. This guy seems to be well over that bar as a matter of fact, not opinion. Hobit (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's not quite true. He's notable if he's worthy of note - WP:RS does not determine notablity as Wikipedia is WP:NOT#NEWS. It is possible for someone to be the subject of multiple articles from reliable sources and still not be notable. Whether or not Mr. Dozono falls into this category is a matter of some debate. However, your criteria for inclusion is not correct. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Longstanding notability that goes beyond the mayoral race. First, he's notable as a businessman. We don't need to argue about the prominence of his business. He was the chairman of the chamber of commerce in Portland, a prominent business institution in a large American city. He appeared frequently in news reports in that capacity, and in fact he was quoted as such in the New York Times: NYT 10/04/01. That's not exactly your neighborhood newspaper. And it's not trivial coverage; the article is about an idea he came up with. It's pretty clear that he was a leading member of the Portland business community. Second, he's notable as a mayoral candidate. The endorsement of the current and former mayor clearly identify him as a major contender for the office, not just some guy who "came out of nowhere" as stated above. The editors above who are discounting "local" coverage are forgetting a basic ground rule of Wikipedia: We have no borders here. If a subject is notable anywhere in the world, it's notable everywhere. I have no COI--this is the first time I've heard of the guy. But the evidence clearly shows that the article meets all the criteria at WP:NOTE. And according to the criteria at WP:BIO, it qualifies on this one Willamette Week article alone. Quoting from WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The Willamette Week is a well-respected reliable, intellectually independent secondary source. Now, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability." But the depth of coverage in this article is substantial. It's the cover story and it's all about him. It's by Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Nigel Jaquiss. It appeared in Oregon's largest newsweekly, with a circulation of 90,000. It qualifies as substantial coverage. Thus, this one article alone is enough to qualify for keep. Never mind the dozens of other news stories. Never mind the mayoral campaign.Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Wow, there sure is a lot of extremely narrow wikilawyering going on regarding this issue. OK, I'll play. The New York Times reference above doesn't mean anything because Dozono is just a passing reference in a very short article. As for the Willamette piece, it would establish a precedent that I'm sure the majority of editors here would never stand for. I went to the current issue of Willamette Week and found this article about a man named Jordan Case: [2]. If I were to try to use this source as justification for an article about Jordan Case, not only would it receive very little support on WP, but it would probably even qualify as a speedy. And yet the Willamette paper runs hundreds of similar articles every year. And yet, it could even be argued that Jordan Case is more notable than Sho Dozono, because Dozono has never had anything as dramatically notable happen to him as being shot dead by police.
The burden for notability is on those who are voting to keep, and the most they seem to be able to come up with is the Willamette Week article. That is mighty thin evidence for notability. To argue that being head of the chamber of commerce in Portland is enough in itself to establish notability, or even that it is a contributing factor to notability, is absurd, because obviously we're not going to start accepting articles about every human being who's ever been head of a chamber of commerce in every town or city in the world. It isn't going to happen.
WP:BIO is being very narrowly and selectively applied here. One can't just quote the parts that support one's position and ignore everything else. The guideline says this about itself: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense." And common sense dictates that the tens of thousands of people who have been "prominent" businessmen in hundreds of cities throughout time and who have made a run for mayor are not notable for our purposes here.
Notability is not established through the wikilawyering of policy. It is established through consensus. And anyone who looks through this AfD will be able to tell--even at a glance--that a consensus for keep has not been achieved here.
It should also be noted that the guideline states "a person is presumed to be notable if..." A presumption is not a fact, just an indication, which is why WP has guidelines rather than laws, and editors rather than wikilawyers.
Some might argue (I am not one of them) that this is a borderline case of notability, but usually what happens with borderline cases that are going to be determined by future events is that we wait for the future event to transpire, and then if notability has finally been established at that point (e.g., he is elected mayor), then we accept the article at that later date.
Since this is our practice, I have to wonder why certain people consider it not important to be patient in this particular case, but to jump up and down arguing for this article to make sure it is included in WP before the election. Why not just sit back and wait till we have undisputable notability on this one? If he's elected mayor, then we will certainly have consensus. That's what WP editing is all about, consensus. Qworty (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Please forgive if me if I sound like I'm wikilawyering. I'm trying to defend an article I have no particular attachment to by referencing guidelines that have been established by consensus and showing how they apply to this article. That seems to how this business should proceed. Let me quote one more time: "objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors." Subject is notable under WP:NOTE. Subject is notable under WP:BIO. Subject is not limited by WP:BLP1E. Ergo, subject is a keep. The comparison article you reference at Willamette Week is about one event (and thus is limited by WP:BLP1E). The article about Dozono in Willamette Week covers the man's entire career. It's backed up by 88 current google news hits about the mayoral campaign (6 years later). The coverage about the mayoral campaign is not just limited to his campaign announcement but is significant coverage that follows campaign events over a period of months. You have repeatedly made statements shown to be false or irrelevant. ("It's all just local stuff," "profile in a small paper.") I'm not really sure who's doing the "jumping up and down" here.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You can't argue both sides of the fence at the same time. You can't argue that he's notable apart from being a politician, and then argue that he's notable because he's a politican (i.e., "backed up by 88 current google news hits about the mayoral campaign"). Those 88 hits equal exactly zero notability because he indisputably fails the WP guidelines for politicans [3]. Thus, his notability as a politican is completely discounted and off the table (unless he is elected mayor). That means that in every source you're providing, you have to eliminate all mention of any of his political activities and see what's left. That leaves you with nothing but his "notability" as a businessman in Portland, Oregon. Well, there are a lot of businessmen in Portland, Oregon, and a lot of them have won minor awards and gotten written up in the local press. There are undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of such people from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean and from 1620 to the present day. According to your criteria, they would all merit Wikipedia articles. I have been involved in a lot of deletion debates, and in terms of the practical application of policy, I can tell you right now that WP notability is never going to be interpreted in a way that establishes a notability bar that is that incredibly low. Qworty (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
First, he does not fail the politician test: "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 primary notability criterion of significant coverage."[4] Being an unelected candidate does not guarantee him notability, but if his candidacy receives "significant coverage" he is notable. That guideline appears designed to exclude people who file to run for mayor but never raise money, are never regarded as serious candidates by the political press, and thus never receive any significant coverage. Dozono is one of two frontrunners for the office and has received significant coverage for his candidacy--demonstrated by multiple newspapers, respected journalists, multiple articles, substantial depth, over a period of time--and nothing in the guidelines precludes that. Second, you're being silly you're misrepresenting my argument about the businessman thing. No one is saying that every businessman person who wins minor awards and gets written up in the local press is notable. We're saying that a businessman person whose career is summed up in a cover story by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a reliable major local newspaper and who also has been mentioned in large regional and national newspapers is notable. Third, I'm not arguing both sides of the fence. I'm arguing that he's notable on the basis of X (businessman), and then above and beyond that fact, he's notable on the basis of X+Y (businessman + politician). That seems to me a clear-cut case. One could just as easily argue that he's notable as a politician alone (Y).Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The guideline for politicians is clear: mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. He's not a mayor, he's not a member of city government. He is, in fact, "an unelected candidate for political office," therefore we have to look outside the realm of politics for his supposed notability. The criterion you have created, "a businessman whose career is summed up in a cover story by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a reliable major local newspaper" does not constitute a policy or guideline that appears anywhere in Wikipedia. There is a prejudice here toward the word "businessman"--in fact, nobody would be arguing to keep if we changed that one word thus: "a janitor whose career is summed up in a cover story by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a reliable major local newspaper." Being a local businessman is just a job, like being a local janitor, streetcar conductor, massage therapist, insurance agent,etc. He doesn't get any extra notability points for being a local businessman--it's not like being an astronaut, after all. Finally, with all due respect, please refrain from WP:NPA by calling other editors names, though I'm sure you didn't mean it personally. Qworty (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Read: "Does not guarantee' notability." Nothing about the guideline says you have to "look outside the realm of politics." It just means that IF he is notable within the realm of politics, he must be notable based on significant coverage, not simply on the basis of filing for office. He has met this threshold. Here are the [17 candidates] who filed for mayor. The politicans guideline is designed to say that not all of them are notable. But some of them may be. And in this case, two of them are. I think further argument on this point distracts from this AfD. This will be my last comment. If you'd like to take it up further, please use my talk page. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) Thank you for providing the full list of 17 (!) candidates. I've started researching them and it appears that many of them do indeed have local press coverage, which is to be expected in a local race such as one for mayor, and you have already conceded that at least 15 of them are non-notable, despite this local press coverage. The "notability" of Dozono certainly begins to lose even more of its supposed luster when viewed within the wider context you've provided. Clearly, we are not going to write 17 articles each and every time some town or city anywhere around the world holds a mayoral election. That's not how notability works. Instead, we have a very useful guideline for political notability, which I've quoted above, and the section that reads members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city applies not to Dozono, but to one of his opponents, Sam Adams, who, lo and behold, already has an article at Sam Adams (Oregon politician). It's one thing to debate policy abstractly; it's quite another to see how policy is applied every day on Wikipedia, and the Sam Adams example is quite instructive on this point. Donozo meets none of the policy guidelines for politicians, but Sam Adams, being a member "of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city," certainly does meet the requirements of the guideline, and that is why there is no dispute or even the merest question about his having an article. Qworty (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you want to work on changing our notability guidelines. Multiple reliable sources have duscussed him in detail over an extended period of time (years). That makes him notable, there isn't any more to it. You may think this is too low a threshhold for politicians and businessmen, but it is the current threshold. You may not like the sources, but unless you can show they aren't reliable they meet the criteria. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if there are a hundred verifiable sources that contain his name. That is not the threshold of WP notability. If it were, then anybody who's ever been mentioned more than a few times in newspapers would be ipso facto notable, and that's not how Wikipedia works. Hundreds of thousands of people have been mentioned more than once in newspapers, but only a tiny percentage of these people are notable according to our notability standards. Be aware of what Wikipedia Is Not: [5]. The guideline clearly states merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It is not a question of verifiable sources; it is a question of "What is Dozono notable for?" He fails the guidelines for notability as a politician, and the only thing left is that he's a businessman from Portland, Oregon. Well, you can find thousands of people who've been businessmen in one city or another and who've been mentioned in newspapers over the years. That's not what notability is about. Qworty (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I know it's hard to see, not being from the Northwest, but it's not just about the lots of news sources about Dozono. This guy is in the forefront of Portland city politics right now, and has always been a powerful influence in a major city's business community. He's not just some yokel or puffed up travel agency owner. WikiProject Oregon wrote this bio because it was in fact requested on the project's talk, and if you asked any Oregonian if Dozono was a notable figure, the answer would be an unquestionable yes. In fact, suggesting Dozono isn't notable would probably get you laughed at. This isn't just some single user's pet project about a nobody political candidate, there is a pressing need for it in Wikipedia's coverage. I have basically never began a living bio personally, to avoid this particular debate. I jumped at this one because I thought, what with the dozens of reliable sources about him, that it wouldn't be controversial. The fact that anyone would waste the project's time fighting so vociferously to delete this astounds me truly. There are a lot of actually poor, unverified political bios out there. This isn't one of them. VanTucky 22:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
One last question: How often does a major newspaper like the Portland Oregonian assign three reporters to do a 6-page investigative report on a non-notable person?Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Qworty, WP:BIO states this:

“ A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
  • If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
 ”

Thus, any one of the many articles in the Oregonian, Portland Tribune, Willamette Week, Portland Mercury,, or the Portland Business Journal that treat Dozono as their central subject -- whether considering his majoral campaign, his business, his charitable efforts, or the ethics of his business dealings -- is enough to establish his notability. Any one. If there were only one, we would have a borderline case, and it would be necessary to exercise careful judgment in assessing whether or not to delete the article. But in fact, we have many such articles -- dozens, I'd estimate. So it's not borderline. He is notable as a business owner. He is also, separately, notable as a promoter of charitable causes. He is also, separately, notable as a major candidate for a major U.S. city. He is also, separately, notable as someone whose candidacy prompted unprecedented questions about how in-kind contributions affect a fairly new public financing law. If there was some legitimate concern that his notability was borderline -- and there is not -- the fact that he's mentioned in multiple publications outside the region (Seattle Times, Boston Globe, New York Times, Puget Sound Business Journal) for multiple events would settle that doubt decisively.

Please note Northwesterner's recent, significant expansion of the article to reflect much of what's been discussed here.

I think Peregrine Fisher's suggestion is pretty apt: clearly, you have a very different view of notability from the current consensus at Wikipedia, and the appropriate action would be to seek changes of WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. -Pete (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, "significant coverage" is one or more major newspapers, and we have that (Seattle Times, Boston Globe, New York Times, Puget Sound Business Journal), so there are no grounds to delete here, even if they are passing references. Obviously above we have a strong consensus to keep so there is not much worth reiterating at this juncture. Also, this "Burden of notability" claim, there is no burden of notability for people stating keep, or delete, because notability is not an eligible claim for deletion. MrPrada (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, serious contender for one of the U.S.'s major cities. —EncMstr 03:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable to me. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep Per Stifle.Kitty53 (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Besides being a candide for office, he also notable for his business activities. Plus its verifiable. Editorofthewiki 16:50, 12 April 2008 (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.