Deletion of Colin Jensen (2nd nomination)

Comment: A city manager or CAO ''can'' get into Wikipedia ''if'' an article about them can be written that's substantive enough and well-sourced enough to pass , but it is not a position that can confer an ''automatic'' inclusion freebie just because the person exists — and there are ''many'' places ''much'' larger than Brisbane where the CAO does ''not'' have an article, so Brisbane's size has no bearing on the matter one way or the other. One of the ''reasons'' we have inclusion standards and |reliable sourcing requirements is that having a Wikipedia article is actually a double-edged sword — because we're an encyclopedia that ''anybody'' can edit, a significant number of anybodies ''regularly'' try to misuse us as a venue for publishing ''attack'' edits against our article topics. So Wikipedia's standards are designed to mitigate against that, by ensuring that our subjects have (a) sufficient media coverage by which the content can be properly |verified, and (b) enough public prominence that a reasonable number of ''responsible'' Wikipedians can actually be ''expected'' to maintain a satisfactory level of quality control over the article. There ''is'' a level of prominence below which the wiki model falls flat on its face, because there are so few people visiting the article that vandalism or attack edits can go uncaught for weeks or even months at a time because nobody's even seeing it. So our inclusion standards and RS requirements and  rules are designed in part around the principle of ''protecting'' people from the unintended consequences of a Wikipedia article — so for that reason, one editor's subjective opinion about "common sense" cannot trump  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:BLP||WP:GNG||WP:RS)