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 delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

John R Norris (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Contested prod. I don't believe there is anything notable in his resume - minster counselor and chief of staff are not exactly notable positions As a candidate he fails WP:NPOL until he is elected Gbawden ( talk) 14:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Definetly notable, passes the GNG. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^{( T/ C)} 21:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The USDA appointment would likely be enough to make him eligible for an article if it were sourced properly — but there's nothing here that entitles him to an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing, and the sourcing is not where it would need to be to claim that he passed WP:GNG in lieu. Iowa Starting Line, for example, is a one-man WordPress blog, not a reliable source, and most of the rest of the sources here are primary ones that don't assist notability at all — for valid sourcing, all we have here is (a) a single unnecessarily quadruplicated citation to Radio Iowa about the initial announcement of the USDA appointment with no evidence of ongoing coverage of him in said role, and (b) routine wire service blurbs about his hiring and departure from the non-notable position of chief of staff to a cabinet secretary. And being a potential candidate in a future gubernatorial election does not boost his notability either — people get articles for holding notable political offices, not just for announcing that they might maybe run in the primary. So no prejudice against recreation if he wins the gubernatorial election next year, but nothing present here right now is enough to already get him an article today. Bearcat ( talk) 14:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Somewhat promotional article on an entirely low-level political figure. Fails WP:NPOL. Absolutely zero in-depth coverage. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:01, 28 May 2017 (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.