Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Johnson, Sr.

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Johnson, Sr.

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

Seems reasonably un-notable, the only sources regarding this person are his obituary. Dying doesn't seem to be something that makes a person notable. Frumpylittlefellow (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not his death that made him notable, but rather his many accomplishments in fighting against political corruption in the labor movement and New York City politics. Hint: the New York Times does not run 14 paragraph obituaries with two photographs about non-notable people. His extremely common name makes separating the wheat from the chaff challenging when searching on Google, but I am highly confident that many additional sources can be found, in addition to the three already in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The New York Times published at least six articles in the 1951-1953 time period discussing his work to reform the International Longshore Association. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am under the impression that the NYT published the obituary because they considered the deceased to be worthy of notice on account of events which took place during his life. James500 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is generally held that an obituary in a major newspaper such as the NYT easily meets our notability bar. Obituaries are given to people because they deserve them, not just because they die. Otherwise everybody would have an obituary! So in what way is it only his dying that's notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2013 (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.