Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Janus

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 redirect to Janus v. AFSCME. As the biography of a living person notable due to a single event, there is consensus to redirect. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Janus

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

An article on this person was previously redirected to Janus v. AFSCME, but a user has since expanded the article with links about Janus himself. However, this separate article accomplishes little more than a promotion of Janus's work history and current advocacy, none of which has received media notice to confer notability. Janus was involved in a notable court case, and all verifiable information on his involvement is already covered at Janus v. AFSCME. Recommend either deletion of this title or a permanent redirect to the case's article with protection against reversion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Janus v. AFSCME would be the best.TH1980 (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: please see next point -- Aboudaqn (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Article author): I have asked whoever started this Deletion request by specifying shortcomings in the "Mark Janus" entry via that entry's Talk page. Instead, this person is willing to take up everyone's time and push back and forth by inserting "Deletion," when this person could be spending same time by specifying any shortcomings. I do not think this Stub entry has shortcomings per Deletion notice. For anyone who disagrees, again, please specify nature of shortcomings, and I will happily address. However, I find the very idea that a person very visible in a major 2018 SCOTUS decision could possibly be worthy of deletion for a Stub article! Aboudaqn (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author comment. Erroneous call for "Deletion": Responding to the reason cited for deletion, "Deletion" does not apply to what this person is claiming, namely a lack of "balance." Further, this person clearly did not read entry carefully -- because there are highly critical statements about Janus from unions including AFSCME (of Janus v. AFSCME). Had this person merely collaborated, rather than bully and threaten me, we would not be here, wasting time. Instead, we could all be expanding that Stub, etc. Aboudaqn (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author comment. Non-collaboration by Deletion nominator: The Deletion nominator has refused to collaborate directly with my open, inviting requests for specification. I find this reaction non-collaborative and ask that others join me in having Deletion requester stop spending time negatively on "fighting" and start spending time in addressing my own collaborative requests. Clearly, this Stub entry has plenty of newspapers/news citations to merit that it remains. Frankly, I suspect the nominator is simply too embarrassed to admit that she/he mis-read or under-read the entry and now cannot "back down" and collaborate instead. Please help me convert this person into a positive contributor to Wikipedia. Aboudaqn (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author comment. Threaten rather than collaborate: After asking for the "plaintiff" in this "case" against an entry for Mark Janus, I asked the plaintiff to work directly with me on the Talk page of "Mark Janus" to specify any issues. As is so common with complainers on Wikipedia, this person decided not to collaborate. Instead, this person threatened me with the following entry on my own talk page " Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you may be blocked from editing." This is non-collaborative, unnecessary, and time-consuming for the complainer, for me, and for everyone this complainer drags into the Deletion debate. Had this person bothered to specify issues and allow me time to address, then I would have respected her/his decision to escalate for Deletion. But when I show myself responsive, welcoming, and collaborative, only to receive her/his threat, well, that is a turn-off for Wikipedian contributors such as myself. Please address the Plaintiff. (Sadly, this is not the first time I encounter someone who would rather engage in tug-of-war to get her/his way rather than collaborate: sadly, a number of Wikipedians exhibit desire to appear authoritative rather than as equals) Aboudaqn (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author comment. Stub: This is a "stub," folks -- please feel free to add! Aboudaqn (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Aboudaqn was the user that expanded the page from a redirect to an article --DannyS712 (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: And DannyS712 is the person who has nominated Stub for deletion Aboudaqn (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Aboudaqn A few things. First, you really need to read edit summaries, warnings and deletion notices. Second, I have never, ever, so much as touched this article until today when you triggered several filters for improperly removing an WP:AFD tag which very clearly and explicitly states he article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed in big bold letters. You're not new here, so there really is no excuse for edit warring to remove a deletion discussion. Third, stop with the legalese. I'm not a plaintiff, I'm not even an interested editor and I certainly didn't nominate this article for deletion, as you can plainly see above. And I left you an edit summary and warning the second time clearly explaining what you needed to do. I expect you will strike your last comment as it's not even remotely true and you're well into WP:NPA territory now. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. I have made the change to DannyS712, as you request (and welcome the correction).Aboudaqn (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would be grateful if you would reply to my other points, too -- even better, please either specify actual deficiencies, and, best, simply collaborate and help make this Stub into something more. Again, had DannyS712 and now you taken a collaborative approach, none of us would be here, and Mark Janus might somehow already be a better Wikipedia Stub or fuller entry. Aboudaqn (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aboudaqn I explained everything I did in full. You however are still failing to grasp what anyone here is saying and are still wrong. Danny isn't even the nominator and so far as I can tell, has not touched the article aside from maintenance to this AFD. I suggest you strike all of your personal attacks regardless of who they are about as not only is it against policy, they are utterly unfounded and no one wants to start their weekend off at ANI. If you want to talk collaboration, I suggest you read the helpful links you've been given and the responses to your many inquiries. As far as "this person hasn't bothered to specify issues" you're also wrong, as it's explained in the AFD, this very page you are commenting on, why the nominator, who is neither myself nor DannyS712, believes this should be deleted. Praxidicae (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Praxidicae: Yes, indeed Friday, and I do not see (1) where you replied to issues above, e.g., call for Deletion was incorrect in first place (2) nor do I understand still how Stub is deficient when it (a) it has plenty of News and Newspaper sources and (b) exhibits balance. So, please specify clearly specifically what you would like to see added to improve -- better, make the improvement yourself, as I do not see deficiency, and so close out this whole issue yourself. Or, would you rather suck up time like this, not make the changes, and so let this Stub die rather than contribute to the common good? Gratefully -- Aboudaqn (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - PS: All I'm getting here from instructions like "go read" is "go get me a rock... get me another rock." Again, why not save time and effort and say exactly which rock is in mind? Better, put that rock right where you want it yourself -- faster! Aboudaqn (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Janus v. AFSCME. Even though the subject has received additional coverage for his employment subsequent to the case, that information is only of interest because of his participation in the case. So, while the subject may be notable, placing information in needed context is a better service to readers than creating a standalone article (see WP:NOPAGE). The additional information about the subject's subsequent employment already exists in Janus v. AFSCME as the single sourced sentence it merits. Bakazaka (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to case. That is the notable subject, not Janus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nominator - Ahem...This sure has turned into a bizarre discussion. I was the person who nominated the article for deletion, as can be clearly seen above. Praxidicae and DannyS712 merely reverted some improper edits by Aboudaqn that violated Wikipedia policy. As the nominator, if I have been accused of "refusing to collaborate" with Aboudaqn's requests, I have not been on Wikipedia since yesterday because I have a job and a life and such. The reasons for my nomination are clear in my original comment and nobody is required to satisfy Aboudaqn demands just because he/she wants the article to survive and doesn't even know who should be yelled at for doing what. Now it's time to let the consensus process play out. You get one vote, and so does everyone else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per status quo antebellum; recent additions verge on the unencyclopaedic and the promotional. Incidentally, I have de-bolded some of Aboudaqn's text above in the interests of WP:BLUDGEON: we get the picture. ——SerialNumber54129 18:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author comment. counter-Deletion requirements satisfied: This Stub now includes citations from books, newspapers (including the New York Times), magazines, Google Scholar. It also adds details from Janus' earlier life and career, as well as his career after Janus v. AFSCME. Aboudaqn (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Janus v. AFSCME - Janus is not notable himself, but he is know for his role in "Janus", so the redirect is useful --DannyS712 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Janus v. AFSCME. His notability outside of this case is "contrived" at best (and the text does not seem appropriate for WP). Britishfinance (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2019 (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.