Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Charles Johnston

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.

Sir Charles Johnston[edit]

The result was Speedy Keep The nominator has failed to follow the deletion process and there is clearly no consensus to delete per WP:SNOW. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlike an american-style mayor, the title of "lord mayor" of London carries no real power and does not make the bearer notable. (London did not have a "real" mayor until 2002 or so.) Furthermore, the source says nothing of this charlatan and the article bears no indication of his significance, which I dare say, is none. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. We have a nice picture from the Library of Congress, a nice box at the bottom showing precessor and successor, and a link to a perfectly good story at the New York Times. Furthermore, there's literally hundreds of these folks in Category:Lord Mayors of London, all presumed notable. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is a poor excuse to delete. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The other lord mayors of London are not presumed notable, but were notable for accomplishments or titles apart from being lord mayor. The gentleman who preceeded Johnston was an MP and the one who succeeded him was a peer and patented some sort of engine. Charles Johnston, however, has no such claim to notability apart from having this one appointmet. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Notable enough for the news of the day in a 708 word article in the New York Times, then still notable today. Of course the article is just a stub now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything covered in the New York Times is significant. What may seem notable today may not be notable in 2109 -- so the argument "notable in 1914, notable today" does not hold any water. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a personal attack from your comment. Don't do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For other disruptive nominations of my articles by Gerbelzodude99 see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Charles Johnston and ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eversharp. I think he is lashing out because I caught him commenting at an AFD without actually looking at the article. If he had read the article, at ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery he would noticed that the New York Times was not the sole reference in the article, instead he repeated the error of the previous voters stating that it was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2009 (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.