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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Jonathon Sharkey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Nomination on behalf of another user, who added their request at Special:Diff/1028085275, copied below for reference:

After emailing with a Wiki Volunteer,

I move to have this article deleted. This article has not been updated with new information in years. Though, 2 years ago, a Wiki Volunteer added numerous new articles.

Here is a article from last week

https://www.observernews.net/2021/06/03/ruskin-man-hopes-to-develop-hockey-training-in-ukraine/

I am not going to add your codes, because I do not do codes.

The page says I am a Perennial Candidate. Do you know what the word means? Ralph Nader and Jill stein have run for more offices than me. And I have not ran for any office in 10 years.

This page is simply bias. Read the TALK section. People saying I was never in the Army. When I am medically retired with a INDEF Military ID Card.

Remember, I live in Florida. You may want to read our laws about Big Tech silencing Conservatives...

I am not even Luciferian anymore. I go to a Ukrainian Orthodox Church. God and I made peace... We cool...

We all know, Wiki and I have a conflict of interest... Therefore, the article must be deleted... No matter the fact, I am still in the public eye

and the media writes about me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by HockeyRacer ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Primefac ( talk) 19:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep per prior nominations. This is not the first time the subject has requested the article's deletion, and each prior time consensus has been that he is notable enough to warrant an article. Wikipedia is not censored based on a subject's preference. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 19:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. Meets WP:SIGCOV. The article is well referenced, and is presented as neutrally as possible. While I can sympathize with the desire to correct factual errors in the article or update content that is no longer accurate, the fact remains that Sharkey is a public figure who ran for political office multiple times. I would support removing the content being objected to in this letter. There's no reason we have to include the Luciferian content in the article, and we can certainly reframe the summation of his career in the lead to make it clear he has not been politically active in a decade. Those aren't valid reasons for deletion. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep has SIGCOV in multiple RS satisfying WP:GNG. WP:NOTCENSORED Mztourist ( talk) 09:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Draftify Article, a biography, appears to be outdated, needs Wikipedia:MEDDATE to conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Until such time, should be draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem ( talk • contribs) 09:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC) reply

We don't draft articles because they are out of date; we simply update them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 11:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Well, maybe "we" should since: Wikipedia:The deadline is now, especially with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and this article has not been in some time. Djflem ( talk) 20:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - clearly notable person. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 11:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Passes GNG, we can't be deleting articles because someone claiming to be the subject is unhappy with what's sourced in it. ★Trekker ( talk) 11:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Draftify As someone from outside, who doesn't know Sharkey, the WP article looks plain weird in the light of the Observernews article, to the extent that I briefly wondered whether they referred to the same person. Clearly the current article is wildly out-of-date. The article is always going to be problematic. If you remove the Luciferian stuff as per @ Presidentman: (which seems sensible) then you end up with a rather feeble article. Viewed strictly, he's not notable as a politician (doesn't matter how many times you stand, or what for, you have to get in to be in, or at least lose in a history-changing way); he's probably not notable as a musician; he's not notable for his run-ins with the law (which are very far from changing the course of legal history); being a Luciferian who drinks blood makes someone unusual but not notable (where else but WP do you get a chance to write that?), so you're left with two possible reasons for being notable: as a wrestler and as a source of hot gossip for the press. And the problematic bit is that if you remove Luciferian etc. the hot gossip bit's gone, and you're left with just an ex-wrestler, wannabe hockey coach. Is that enough professional sport to make him notable? I see @ Lee Vilenski:'s point, but here's the dilemma: an encyclopaedia is worthless if it's so outdated as to be misleading, but you can't force anyone to update this page (I'm not going to waste my time on it), and if no one can be bothered to update it, that implies no one really cares who John Sharkey is, which in turn implies he's not, in a public sense, notable. Hence I'd say draftify and delete if no one actually updates. Elemimele ( talk) 12:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC) reply

You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of what notable means. I'm not sure where Presidentman has expressed that we should be removing sourced content from this article, and there is WP:NODEADLINE for this article to be updated. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 13:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Sorry, my mistake, it wasn't Presidentman, it was 4meter4. I'm willing to accept that as a newbie here my opinion may be completely misguided so I'll withdraw it. Also I'm writing from a place under European rules so he may have been Google-forgotten here, which makes him look less than he is/was. But we owe it to the guy that any article about him is accurate, and updated as necessary. Elemimele ( talk) 15:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Maybe I'm missing something, but I really don't see how he's clearly notable after a source review? We don't typically keep articles on candidates who have failed to win, and while we sometimes keep perennial candidates, they would generally have lots of coverage. I see a lot of FEC campaign filings and local interest/"and finally..." news articles in the article, and not a lot of coverage from someone who's either a wrestler or a serious candidate who's notable enough to have a stand-alone article. As an example, he's only briefly mentioned in the 2012 primary article and the 2006 gubernatorial election article. Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, what I see here is a page about a relatively unknown, private individual who's requested it to be deleted. We should respect that. SportingFlyer T· C 18:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I have to agree with the user above, I feel that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE should be taken into account here, and a large chunk of the sources in the article are FEC records and candidate listings that don't afford him any specific significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. Additionally, concerning his other career as a wrestler, the article as-is does not give us a strong case for WP:ATHLETE either. Finally, I think it's important to note that when dealing with BLP issues, the deadline is now; consideration of the effect of an article on its living subject is a standard here per WP:BLP and not something that can simply be rebuked by citing WP:NOTCENSORED. / Tpdwkouaa ( talk) 19:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails Wikipedia:MUSICBIO, Wikipedia:NPOL, Wikipedia:ATHLETE Djflem ( talk) 21:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Very clearly meets WP:GNG as he has had extensive news coverage for a wide variety of incidents. If there are errors, those should definitely be fixed, but this person definitely qualifies for an article. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Nihonjoe: Can you be more specific about the incidents that are referring to that are not Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, keeping in mind that Wikipedia:NOTNEWS? Djflem ( talk) 20:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Nothing in the article is remotely "run of the mill". Go read the article and the references that support it. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Nihonjoe: I've read it and edited it. That's why I'm asking what you would consider notable "incidents" that are worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Djflem ( talk) 21:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per SportingFlyer. I've been watching and dithering over this for a while; ultimately, I'm inclined to say the subject just isn't someone where a Wikipedia article must exist. There's also the consideration that (taking the subject at face value) the article seems to have outright false/outdated statements for which the sources to update don't exist -- I'm hesitant to keep a BLP in that position. At the very least, we'll avoid having like thirteen of these nominations, and I don't think there's enough notability here to overcome the ethical "subject doesn't want this" consideration. Vaticidal prophet 05:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per SportingFlyer and Vaticidalprophet. This is a case of borderline notability, not strong or solid enough to overcome the subject's objections. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies here, IMO. No objection to to a redirect, if there is an appropriate target to direct it to. Sal2100 ( talk) 22:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply

DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS FUNNY... If you DELETE this article, you will only have to redo it from the beginning, when I officially become the Ball Hockey Commissioner of Ukraine with the ISBHF... Read the newest articles... I can't write about myself. I answer now to a higher sports authority... Do as you want! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HockeyRacer ( talk • contribs) 01:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete The coverage of Mr. Sharkey amounts to "et us find the most bizarre thing out there to spiece up the news with". There is nothing about him that actually passes notability. Being a no change at all, not effecting the outcome of the election candidate for various offices does not make one notable, nor does being a low draw person paid to engage in the show business activitiy dubbed "wrestling" make someone notable. Unless we want to make Wikipedia a catalogue of everyone who has ever had a news article published about them on a slow news day, there is no reason to have an article on him. If there is not a "what Wikipedia is not" criteria that excludes him, there ought to be, because he is in no way actually notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment I find it hard to believe a lot of the stuff in this article was ever meant to be more than a joke. Just because newspapers need to fill clumn space and push out some product does not mean we should always take them at face value and repeat clearly not verrified claims as if they are verrified. That is what a lot of the content of this article ends up being. This is one case where teating newspaperfs as secondary sources instead of primary sources ends up being unwise. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Clearly meets GNG based on multiple stories, devoted solely to covering this individual, from major news outlets. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:40, 28 June 2021 (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.