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. ✗plicit 12:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Stafford Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 10:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The references are way more than passing references. Some mention him in the headline. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I'm seeing. It is a BLP and all of them in the first block should be in-depth. None of them in the block are specific about him, many of them a bare search urls. Where is the WP:SECONDARY sourcing that can notability. In fact, not one of the 12 references is specificly about him, which against policy and doesn't support WP:BLP. scope_creep^Talk 15:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The allegation is that the William Stafford Jones entry fails the general notability guideline for significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). The guideline states:

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject . . . ‘Significant coverage’ addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.”

“Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage” are presumed to be notable. (Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges)

The Jones entry clearly meets the “significant coverage” standard. The entry cites articles over a nine-year period, involving multiple political issues, where Jones is either the main topic or among the main topics of the coverage. These articles provide extensive information about Jones such that the entry relies on no original research and every factual claim in the entry is supported by referenced authorities.

(Aside: The entry contains some references where Jones is not the main topic, but these references provide authority for other background statements in the entry. That reference style is consistent with the notability guidelines. WP:SIGCOV: “These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list.”)

Significant coverage is established by (at minimum) the following references in the entry:

• Curry, Christopher (2012-09-15). "Legislator files elections complaint against Alachua County GOP chief". Gainesville Sun. The article reports about a state election complaint that was filed against Jones. Jones is featured prominently in the article’s sub-headline: “A state senator has filed an elections complaint against Stafford Jones over a political committee Jones chairs that is sending out mailers attacking Democratic legislative candidates while listing no contributions or expenditures.” Jones is the main topic of the article, mentioned or referred to in almost every paragraph of the article.

• Morgan, Watkins (2014-08-16). "Robocalls using Crist's words from 2006 defended, assailed". Gainesville Sun. The sub-headline reads: “Alachua County Republican Executive Committee Chairman Stafford Jones has drawn some recent attention this election season for a controversial robocall.” Jones is the focus of the article, and the article notes that Jones has a history of controversial campaigning tactics.

• Dixon, Matt (2015-07-16). "Depositions show Florida GOP push for favorable Senate lines". Politico. Numerous state and national outlets covered Jones’ involvement in Florida’s 2011 congressional redistricting that the Florida Supreme Court declared unconstitutional. A 2015 Politico article mentioned Jones 17 times (not including pronouns) and detailed what it described as Jones’ “starring role” in the gerrymandering process.

• Caplan, Andrew (2019-01-12). "Behind the scenes, Bainter pulls strings". Gainesville Sun. The article mentions Jones 21 times, not including numerous additional pronoun references. This longform article reports how dark money is influencing elections in Florida, and a central focus of the article is about how Jones is behind the money. A large section of the article titled, “The Money,” provides extensive background information on Jones and explains his influence in Florida politics.

• Henderson, John (2021-02-26). "Watchdog group: Nonprofits broke IRS laws, gave nearly $3 million to Republican campaigns". Gainesville Sun. The article is about how political committees headed by Jones broke IRS laws by failing to disclose millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Jones is the central figure of the story, he’s mentioned 16 times (not including pronouns), and his headshot is the only image in the article.

User:Scope_creep claims, “None of [the entry’s references] are specific [sic] about him, many of them a [sic] bare search urls. . . In fact, not one of the 12 references is specificly [sic] about him…” ScopeCreep’s assertions are clearly and demonstrably false. Participants in a deletion process should carefully review all references before voting. --Elindstr (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Elindstr.4meter4 (talk) 02:50, 26 September 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.