505:- 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 Knowledge, 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.--
590:. 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 If you check the page, he is still listed as a withdrawn presidential candidate.--
431:. 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 Knowledge. 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; Knowledge 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.
713:- 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.
629:
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.
259:—"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?—
893:. 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.
650:, 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.--
628:
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
538:
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
365:
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
224:
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
553:
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.
483:
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 Knowledge should
539:
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.—
193:
99:
94:
89:
84:
79:
757:
688:
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.
801:
735:
187:
154:
337:? 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?—
779:
74:
847:, 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). -
240:
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.
587:
972:
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.--
294:
Sorry
Jonathon, but you're clearly notable (per Alf.laylah.wa.laylah), and you don't get to control the content of your own Knowledge entry.
127:
122:
973:
131:
998:
981:
965:
942:
919:
902:
885:
858:
835:
815:
793:
771:
749:
726:
699:
679:
659:
640:
614:
581:
565:
548:
529:
493:
475:
440:
417:
395:
375:
360:
346:
323:
303:
268:
249:
234:
114:
57:
208:
17:
544:
371:
342:
264:
175:
826:- Sufficient notability established through independent sources. "He wants it gone" isn't a valid deletion rationale.
655:
281:
have a policy to delete articles on living subjects if they ask us to. And
Sharkey has clearly expressed that desire.
878:
169:
1013:
935:
540:
489:
436:
367:
338:
260:
36:
1012:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
898:
852:
831:
413:
299:
286:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
977:
165:
225:
against him on the talk page. I would suggest deleting it, because keeping it will only cause more trouble.
447:
Okay, I agree with you, Knowledge should not be a PR machine. So why is the fact that he gave his own photo
314:
I'm sorry... where exactly is this deletion-on-subject's-request policy? That seems inconceivable to me.
961:
694:
674:
651:
635:
576:
560:
390:
871:
844:
611:
526:
472:
215:
118:
928:
485:
432:
894:
867:
848:
827:
409:
356:
295:
282:
245:
230:
201:
53:
400:
Looks like you're right; I remembered wrong. One of the criteria for speedy deletion is if the
957:
811:
789:
767:
745:
689:
669:
630:
571:
555:
385:
181:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
995:
915:
591:
570:
Further question, were you involved in the talk page discussion or in one of the past Afds?
506:
452:
334:
110:
63:
956:. Maybe semi-protect the page + talk page for the duration of the current election cycle?
722:
668:
Quick question: Were you involved in the talk page discussion or one of the past Afds?
352:
319:
241:
226:
991:, He is notable. There is significant coverage of him in multiple reliable sources.
953:
714:
49:
807:
785:
763:
741:
586:
No. The experience I'm referring to was about
Jonathan Sharkey's inclusion on the
148:
404:
of the article requests deletion; I mistakenly believed that also applied to the
992:
911:
718:
315:
1006:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
48:. Consensus that the article meets the notability guidelines.
758:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
927:- He has not gotten less notable since the last nomination.
277:. While I'm obviously sad to be put in this position, we
870:
et al above. Enough reliable mainstream sources exist.
144:
140:
136:
100:
Articles for deletion/Jonathon
Sharkey (6th nomination)
95:
Articles for deletion/Jonathon
Sharkey (5th nomination)
90:
Articles for deletion/Jonathon
Sharkey (4th nomination)
85:
Articles for deletion/Jonathon
Sharkey (3rd nomination)
80:
Articles for deletion/Jonathon
Sharkey (2nd nomination)
200:
802:list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1016:). No further edits should be made to this page.
736:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
780:list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions
214:
8:
800:Note: This debate has been included in the
778:Note: This debate has been included in the
756:Note: This debate has been included in the
734:Note: This debate has been included in the
351:How can it be PROD? It's the fifth AFD nom!
910:. Clearly notable from all the sources. --
799:
777:
755:
733:
72:
75:Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey
7:
408:of the article. I guess it doesn't.
70:
24:
717:is satisfied, above and beyond.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
289:) 04:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
999:02:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
982:02:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
966:01:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
943:19:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
920:00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
333:—is it something other than
58:08:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
903:23:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
886:23:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
859:22:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
836:22:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
816:20:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
794:20:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
772:20:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
750:20:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
727:12:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
700:06:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
680:06:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
660:05:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
641:05:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
615:07:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
582:06:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
566:05:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
549:05:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
530:04:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
494:05:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
476:04:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
441:04:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
418:14:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
396:06:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
376:05:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
361:04:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
347:04:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
324:04:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
304:14:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
269:04:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
250:14:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
235:04:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
1033:
503:Strongly support deletion
384:There is no such policy.
1009:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
588:list of GOP candidates
69:AfDs for this article:
541:alf.laylah.wa.laylah
368:alf.laylah.wa.laylah
366:missing something.—
339:alf.laylah.wa.laylah
261:alf.laylah.wa.laylah
44:The result was
818:
805:
796:
783:
774:
761:
752:
739:
652:William S. Saturn
1024:
1011:
940:
933:
882:
875:
855:
806:
784:
762:
740:
697:
692:
677:
672:
638:
633:
609:
606:
603:
600:
597:
594:
579:
574:
563:
558:
524:
521:
518:
515:
512:
509:
470:
467:
464:
461:
458:
455:
393:
388:
275:Reluctant delete
219:
218:
204:
152:
134:
111:Jonathon Sharkey
64:Jonathon Sharkey
34:
1032:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1014:deletion review
1007:
936:
929:
880:
873:
857:
853:
843:- Knowledge is
695:
690:
675:
670:
636:
631:
607:
604:
601:
598:
595:
592:
577:
572:
561:
556:
522:
519:
516:
513:
510:
507:
486:PurityOfEssence
468:
465:
462:
459:
456:
453:
433:PurityOfEssence
391:
386:
161:
125:
109:
106:
104:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1030:
1028:
1019:
1018:
1002:
1001:
985:
984:
969:
968:
946:
945:
922:
905:
895:Thunderstone99
888:
868:GaryColemanFan
861:
851:
849:The Bushranger
845:WP:NOTCENSORED
838:
828:GaryColemanFan
820:
819:
797:
775:
753:
730:
729:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
683:
682:
663:
662:
644:
643:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
568:
551:
533:
532:
499:
498:
497:
496:
449:
448:
444:
443:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
410:Difluoroethene
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
328:
327:
326:
307:
306:
296:Difluoroethene
283:Difluoroethene
271:
253:
252:
222:
221:
158:
105:
103:
102:
97:
92:
87:
82:
77:
71:
68:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1029:
1017:
1015:
1010:
1004:
1003:
1000:
997:
994:
990:
987:
986:
983:
979:
975:
974:70.24.211.105
971:
970:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
948:
947:
944:
941:
939:
934:
932:
926:
923:
921:
917:
913:
909:
906:
904:
900:
896:
892:
889:
887:
884:
883:
877:
876:
869:
865:
862:
860:
856:
854:One ping only
850:
846:
842:
839:
837:
833:
829:
825:
822:
821:
817:
813:
809:
803:
798:
795:
791:
787:
781:
776:
773:
769:
765:
759:
754:
751:
747:
743:
737:
732:
731:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
709:
708:
701:
698:
693:
687:
686:
685:
684:
681:
678:
673:
667:
666:
665:
664:
661:
657:
653:
649:
646:
645:
642:
639:
634:
627:
624:
623:
616:
613:
610:
589:
585:
584:
583:
580:
575:
569:
567:
564:
559:
552:
550:
546:
542:
537:
536:
535:
534:
531:
528:
525:
504:
501:
500:
495:
491:
487:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
474:
471:
446:
445:
442:
438:
434:
430:
427:
426:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
398:
397:
394:
389:
383:
377:
373:
369:
364:
363:
362:
358:
354:
350:
349:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
305:
301:
297:
293:
290:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
270:
266:
262:
258:
255:
254:
251:
247:
243:
239:
238:
237:
236:
232:
228:
217:
213:
210:
207:
203:
199:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
167:
164:
163:Find sources:
159:
156:
150:
146:
142:
138:
133:
129:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
107:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
81:
78:
76:
73:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1008:
1005:
988:
958:Stuartyeates
949:
937:
930:
924:
907:
890:
879:
872:
863:
840:
823:
710:
647:
625:
502:
450:
428:
405:
401:
330:
291:
278:
274:
273:
256:
223:
211:
205:
197:
190:
184:
178:
172:
162:
45:
43:
31:
28:
451:relevant?--
188:free images
808:• Gene93k
786:• Gene93k
764:• Gene93k
742:• Gene93k
335:WP:BLPDEL
938:Qwertyus
331:question
155:View log
50:Davewild
406:subject
194:WP refs
182:scholar
128:protect
123:history
954:WP:GNG
952:meets
931:Marcus
912:GRuban
866:. Per
715:WP:GNG
691:Silver
671:Silver
648:Delete
632:Silver
573:Silver
557:Silver
402:author
387:Silver
353:SOXROX
242:SOXROX
227:SOXROX
166:Google
132:delete
696:seren
676:seren
637:seren
578:seren
562:seren
484:work.
392:seren
209:JSTOR
170:books
149:views
141:watch
137:links
16:<
989:Keep
978:talk
962:talk
950:Keep
925:Keep
916:talk
908:Keep
899:talk
891:Keep
864:Keep
841:Keep
832:talk
824:Keep
812:talk
790:talk
768:talk
746:talk
723:talk
719:Tarc
711:Keep
656:talk
626:Keep
612:talk
545:talk
527:talk
490:talk
473:talk
437:talk
429:Keep
414:talk
372:talk
357:talk
343:talk
320:talk
316:EEng
300:talk
292:Keep
287:talk
265:talk
257:keep
246:talk
231:talk
202:FENS
176:news
145:logs
119:talk
115:edit
54:talk
46:keep
996:fan
881:iro
216:TWL
153:– (
993:GB
980:)
964:)
918:)
901:)
874:He
834:)
814:)
804:.
792:)
782:.
770:)
760:.
748:)
738:.
725:)
658:)
608:23
605:ll
602:ba
599:ew
593:Sc
547:)
523:23
520:ll
517:ba
514:ew
508:Sc
492:)
469:23
466:ll
463:ba
460:ew
454:Sc
439:)
416:)
374:)
359:)
345:)
322:)
302:)
279:do
267:)
248:)
233:)
196:)
147:|
143:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
56:)
976:(
960:(
914:(
897:(
830:(
810:(
788:(
766:(
744:(
721:(
654:(
596:r
543:(
511:r
488:(
457:r
435:(
412:(
370:(
355:(
341:(
318:(
298:(
285:(
263:(
244:(
229:(
220:)
212:·
206:·
198:·
191:·
185:·
179:·
173:·
168:(
160:(
157:)
151:)
113:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.