Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan H. Gardner

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The arguments for deletion have a more substantial weight in policy, particularly in pointing out that many of the citations on the page are primary, and many of the news sources are local and routine, therefore they don't contribute significantly to notability under the portion of N that requires substantial attention on a broad (usually taken to mean national) scale. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jan H. Gardner

[edit]
Jan H. Gardner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

County executive, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Rusf10 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, she's the first female office holder because the position was just created. If the next person elected to the position is a man, does he automatically get an article too because he is the first male? All the sources are local and routine which does not pass WP:NPOL.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She is, however, the first to hold her position of elected county executive. While this does not grant automatic notability, it is true that being the "first" to an elected positions (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William W. Bennett) does contribute to notability for a politician. Presumably not least because it will be mentioned in future histories of that county.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you're saying is the first (fill in position) of anywhere is notable. So, for example if a new town of 100 people is established by succeeding from another town, its first mayor is notable? There are literally millions of firsts in world and just being first is not a reason for notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No "straw man" at all, E.M.Gregory. You wrote that the subject is "the first to hold her position of elected county executive" and that while "this does not grant automatic notability, it is true that being the first to an elected positions...does contribute to notability for a politician." This is patently untrue and all Rusf10 did was to point that out to you! It may apply in the world at large out there (e.g. in terms of a brief media cycle) but not for Wikipedia and its N-policy. If you think otherwise, I invite you to enlighten us it with chapter and verse. -The Gnome (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You distort my comment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite difficult to "distort" your comments when I quote them verbatim. The Gnome (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rusf10's point is well taken. But, just for the record, "Clinton's loss sparks surge of interest in electing Md. women," Wiggins, Ovetta. The Washington Post; 11 Dec 2016: C.6. describes her as one of only 2 women who "hold the top elected post in the state's 24 main jurisdictions " My point is that she gets discussed in the press quite a lot and for a range of reasons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks EMG! I wasn't going to reply because I thought a response would give such a silly comment way more weight than it deserved. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are good in your opinion? SportingFlyer talk 07:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram has one of the broadest interpretations of GNG among the regular commentators at AfDs I see. I wouldn't read too much into their opinion as it is almost a default position: if it exists/lives/lived then let's have an article on it (I exaggerate, but not by much). In this instance, they're completely ignoring NPOLITICIAN. - Sitush (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - excuse my ignorance but can anyone give an equivalent to a county executive in other countries? I'm very slightly concerned that this might be creep towards articles about every head of every governmental body. Eg: I think we generally only accept mayors of particularly significant cities etc but, while I don't think this person is a mayor, we may be setting a precedent for a considerable broadening of scope. I don't think Doncram would disagree if I say that they and I often disagree about inclusionism/deletionism when it comes to this sort of thing. I also don't think that being a woman creates some sort of additional element of notability unless sources focus on that: indeed, I am absolutely fed up of gender being touted as a basis for some sort of dilution of notability requirements, regardless of which gender it may be. I'm also not seeing why "inaugural" anything counts - I could be the inaugural serial opposer at Wikipedia AfDs but would not in itself make me notable, merely (in this example) possibly a curmudgeon. No comment about the business side of things - that topic area is renowned for puffery, paid editing etc and I'm generally fairly poor at spotting it. The sourcing generally looks pretty poor - passing mentions in failed elections, non-independent, trivial etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Doncram makes a good point. With county executives and mayors of small to medium sized cities, the scope of Wikipedia has been getting quite large. But Gardner is just one of the many now. If we drop her from Wikipedia, we have to drop plenty of others, such as former Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz. So I vote to keep.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Folklore1 (talk • contribs) 9:53, May 23, 2018 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Folklore1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
Fine, but who are you? -The Gnome (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a point of information, we don't have to drop others - it's a question of individual notability here. Deb (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What point does Doncram make? Keep because it has sources and I like the article, so it meets WP:GNG? Your argument is based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From a cursory glance, Kevin Kamenetz would pass WP:GNG. Your analogy is flawed. SportingFlyer talk 07:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete County executives are just not defult notable, and we lack enough sourcing to show she is otherwise notable. I am now thinking I would support deleting our article on Warren Evans, unless people can find lots of coverage of him outside the Detroit Metro Area. The problem is that not only can I not explain what the equivalanet of a county executive is in another country, it is a hit and miss office in the United States. Some counties have instead a county mayor, some counties have a county judge (which in some places, such as Missouri, is an executive not a judicial office, a distinction that exists in the US but not in some other countries), and many places do not have one person who holds the top executive office. It might be somewhat like a sherrif in England, although I am not sure if they even still have sherrif's. In the US a sheirrif is only over law enforcement, he is basically the chief of police for a county, but unlike most city chiefs of police is normally elected directly by the people, as opposed to being an appointee of someone else. I only really understand the system in Michigan. In Michigan, we have 83 counties. Only 3 of them have a county executive. In the case of Oakland County, Michigan with over 1 million people L. Brookes Patterson is clearly notable. However he has been the dominate political force in Oakland County for about 40 years. In the case of macomb County, we have Mark Hackell who I derisively call King Hackell. He basically manipulated the situation to create the office so he could have it. Before that he was county sherriff, a position he essentially inherited from his father after his father went to prison for rape. I hate the nepositsm inherent in the system. Hackell has tried his best to destroy the closest thing he has to a political rival, James Fouts, mayor of our counties largest city, but creating fraudulent recordings of Fouts speech to smear him. This was in response to Fouts having exposed Hackell for breaking the law. In Wayne County Warren Evans is executive, however in most ways he is always playing second string to Detroit Mayor Michael Duggin. Detroit has over half the county population. One key factor is that the sherrif has little control over law enforcement, he runs the county jail, and in some counties his deputies are local police for most of the less developed areas. In Wayne County, the main local police funtion done by the sheirrif is policing Detroit City buses. However the county prosecutor, also directly elected, can serve as a counter balance to all political power misuse. Kym Worthy as county prosecutor in Wayne County was the key person in sending "King" Kwame Kilpatrick to jail. Well, ok, it was Kilpatrick's constant breaking of the law that sent him there, and it was his assaulting a police officer and adding insult to injury by telling the African-American police officer that she should be ashamed to have a partner named white (he was a white man as well), that just brought Kwame crashing down, not his perjury, although he is now serving federal corruption charges. Worthy probably handled enough notable cases back when she was asssitant prosecutor to be notable, but she has also handled several widely publicized cases as county prosecutor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when an article quotes from a subject's person bio to say what they are most proud of, it is too dependet on the subject for information, and shows that the subject is not actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yikes. She's a local county executive so needs to pass #2 in WP:NPOL or WP:GNG and she doesn't come close. There are 17 citations in the article. Seven are election results and can be discarded. Of the remaining ten, none are independently about her outside of the context of her campaign. One is for her own website, one is an opinion piece, one's a primary source from the state of Maryland, one's a four-sentence article on the winners of the seats on the council and mention more than just her, et cetera. The Washington Post is the best source in the entire article and it's an absolute WP:MILL article. Flagrantly terrible sourcing for a position which needs good sourcing to get past WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 07:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I feel like I don't know enough about American local politics to vote as to whether she's notable, but it does seem to me that the article is somewhat biased towards her achievements and needs a bit of NPOV improvement if it's going to stay. Deb (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Deb (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
  • Delete on account of subject failing WP:NPOLITICIAN. The text contains interesting information but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -The Gnome (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I ran a search and added a little material on her political positions. She's anti-growth in a county where development appears to be the big issue, but there is a remarkable amount of coverage of her positions available in the Baltimore Sun, WaPo and other media. I only added a little. Mostly, I read enough to satisfy myself that this article could grow into a useful portrait of a county executive. Search tip: the same newspaper will sometimes use "Jan H. Gardner" and other times"Jan Gardner". E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I do not understand. The same could be said of every election candidate, every mayor of every town everywhere in the world etc. But we don't allow it. The US seems to be get away with stuff that just isn't accepted for the rest of the world. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Point well made. -The Gnome (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gardner has received significant coverage. No original research is needed about the subject. Reliable sources, independent of the subject, exist. This article has not exhausted all such sources. The article could stand to be improved, yes. I realize my opinion on the matter disagrees with many other people who have posted on this page. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion and several recent and present discussions persuades me, as it has persuaded several editors commenting above, that too many editors are applying WP:NPOL without taking a close look at individual careers and available sources. Except with new pages on candidates actively running for office, I recommend tagging pages and leaving the tag in place for a year before taking politicians to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE TO CLOSER-User:Bangabandhu has canvassed several of the above votes. I've tagged them.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should read WP:CANVASS with greater care than you tag pages for deletion.

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:...On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:...Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

Everyone I "canvassed" made an earlier, substantial contribution to the page. I am removing your tags. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial edits, right? Like these? [1][2] Or how about this? [3] The only person you could possibly claim that made a substantial edit is Quackslikeaduck. This is canvassing and you know it. Do not try to remove the templates again, the closing admin needs to see them.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a total of 11 editors and I notified all of them. Actually, I missed a couple of them and I'm going to notify them now. There's nothing biased in my notice. "Substantial" has nothing to do with the extent of the edit, I didn't look at what they had changed. I'm going to remove your tags. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rusf10, I see no evidence of canvassing. The editor notified all editors who worked on the article in a neutral manner, and had no way of knowing whether they would support keeping the article. This is not canvassing. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is canvassing. You mean to tell me it is appropriate to send notifications to each person who made as much a correction of a spelling error? And there are ways to know whether some of these people support keeping the article. For example, Doncram votes keep on pretty much everything.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fact check Untrue. Here is Doncram's record: [4], Making false assertions is never helpful, but it is a particularly rude when done by an editor with Rusf10's case iVoting pattern at AfD [5], Rusf10 skews more heavily to "delete" than Doncram's does towards "keep".E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics check: Incorrect conclusion. The fact that user A votes more often to Keep and editor B to Delete proves almost nothing about bias. (1) It's very probable they're not voting on the same AfDs. (2) It's quite possible one tends to voice an opinion more when a case for Keep is strong rather than when there's a case for Delete, and vice versa (3) AfDs are processes that seemingly result more in deletion than in keeping, which means that a tendency to suggest Delete expresses a majority tendency.
Of course, it's a clear evidence of bias when a user has expressed openly their preferences about deleting or including articles that are in a grey area of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusf10: FYI—but such as Doncram votes keep on pretty much everything is verging towards the realm of WP:ASPERSIONS. Not saying you've shown your passport for entry to that realm yet (may WP:ASPERSIONS yet become a Republic!), just on the way with that remark. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 08:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about your background, Rusf10, but I have the suspicion you do not know much about random walks. -The Gnome (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "County executive" is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL on every person who holds it — it's a level of office that can get a person into Wikipedia if she can be referenced well enough to mark her out as a special case over and above most other county executives, but not a level where every county executive who exists automatically gets in the door. But this is not sourced well enough to make Jan Gardner a special case — it's referenced about 50 per cent to primary sources, such as her own self-published campaign website and raw tables of election results that are not evidence of notability in and of themselves, and the half that is media coverage is the purely local media coverage that's simply and routinely expected to exist for local county councillors. And no, being the first woman to hold an otherwise non-notable office does not confer an exemption from having to clear the same inclusion standards as any other county councillor, either. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: I struck through the canvassing suspicions. It's not just that this wasn't canvassing, it's also problematic that editors who came here with good faith to contribute to the discussion (and their votes fall on both sides) are now being discouraged, really accused. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Drmies. -The Gnome (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor who takes the time to actually look at the page (WP:HEY it has been improved during this discussion,) will see that coverage of Gardner's political career began 20 years ago, and that her political positions have been getting INDEPTH coverage for 20 years. The county she runs is an outer suburb of Washington. It has a local newspaper Frederick News-Post, but her activities are covered INDEPTH (in stories about issues she works on , not profiles of her,) by two regional dailies, the Baltimore Sun and the Washington Post, sometimes these stories run in the general edition of these papers, more often in the regional edition covering suburban Maryland. The question at issue here is, Is regional coverage sufficient? It is pointless, and somewhat uncollegial, to make misrepresentations (such as asserting that "all coverage is within context of elections" or that it fails PERSISTENT,) or to argue that she doesn't get "an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL" after other, equally experienced editors have argued "Sourced, good article, meets GNG."E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the new sources and I have to respectfully disagree with your argument here - first, Ms. Gardner has only been in office since 2014. Furthermore, all of the sourcing currently on the page only talks about her in the context of her local political career. Just because an article can be sourced doesn't make the sources significant. In this case, the best source is the Washington Post get-to-know-your-candidate, but not only is that article short, I'm sure they did it with all the important candidates running in the race, which doesn't make her special. The question isn't, is regional coverage sufficient? It would be if Ms. Gardner had been written about in multiple significant regional feature stories. Rather, the question being asked: is Ms. Gardner notable? All local politicians will at some point be covered in the press, and all of the non-primary sources here are exactly what you'd expect to see of a local politician who's simply doing their job. SportingFlyer talk 18:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fact check: She has been "in office" on the Board of Commissioners since 1998.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Even then, that has absolutely no bearing on notability. SportingFlyer talk 21:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree woth E.M. Gregory. Local politicans can be notable as the guidelines make clear of they've received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources beyond routine local coverage. That standard is clearly met. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)!vote by banned user--Rusf10 (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wonder on which policy or guideline do some folks base their assertions. Let us recall that a person can be mentioned extensively in the media but that on its own does not mean a Wikipedia article should be dedicated to them. Please consult WP:GNG again: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Emphasis in the original text. That is why we have the many specific guidelines, i.e. about sports people, authors, actors, politicians, etc. -The Gnome (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that? I mean, can you demonstrate that this is why these guidelines were created? Because I had a different understanding of the reasons why such rules exist. This is, of course, not pertinent to the question at issue in this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that this issue has never been resolved on purpose. At wt:n there have been numerous discussions over the years about the definition of "presumed"[6], what conditions are necessary and/or sufficient,[7] etc. The recent discussion, Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 60#Promote to policy? touches on many of the issues, as did the discussion over the changes to NCORP and the more recent discussion Wikipedia talk:Notability#Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline? Smmurphy(Talk) 02:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The foundations of Wikipedia are the five pillars, the first of which is the statement that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, with the emphatic caveat that this does not mean Wikipedia is to be used as a depository of indiscriminate information. As a social observer once said, everyone at one time or another shall have their fifteen minutes of fame. The very definition of notability makes it quite clear that this may not suffice as justification for an article. -The Gnome (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note for the closing volunteer. Search string in nomination was not with the common name, possibly impacting the validity of nominator's WP:BEFORE (if any; there is no indication whatsoever that any work has been done to research the deletion), as well as all opinions above that favored deletion. gidonb (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
gidonb, I resent the accusation that "all opinions that favor Delete" have not done their homework. I know what I have done and I know I have done enough. I'd suggest that instead of being so emotionally involved you should calm down and proceed without personal commentary. It only derails and inhibits the dialogue; moreover, it does not help those who want to close the AfD. -The Gnome (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did a WP:BEFORE search. Google hits are not an indication of notability. How about you actually read some of the articles rather than just post links to search results? That is just as lazy as not doing a BEFORE search. Outside the local sources, which of those articles contain in-depth coverage? I see a bunch of articles about flooding that contain a quote from Gardner. The articles are about flooding, not her.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
lthough I do not see the sources about "flooding," there are a number of sources on the page in which her position and political activity on water supply in the county is discussed in the context of whether to permit residential development. As is her position on other issues. While some of these may include quotes, they are non-routine discussions of her positions within article about development battles and other issues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The articles about flooding are literally at the top of the list. Anyway, its not important. The only thing I could find on water supply is this which contains 1 quote from her. Besides Dredging Today is not exactly the type of publication that can be used to establish notability. If you found anything other than that I bet its in the local newspaper which brings us back to routine coverage again which is not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? Ah. Now I see. You're talking about a gNews search. I was talking about the sources on the page. Mystery solved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your previous response seemed to confuse the WP:GNG with WP:COMMONNAME. Maybe cause you were writing under my comment on the necessity of a name change that I have put into action and its possible impacts on the validity of the delete opinions above? In any case there is a huge difference between the GNG and COMMONNAME! gidonb (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: I have no objection to the name change. My point is whether I type "Jan Gardner" or "Jan H. Gardner", I am not seeing the sources necessary to pass WP:GNG. And you can stop being condescending towards me and the other people above you disagree with. As if we couldn't figure out that "Jan H. Gardner" and "Jan Gardner" were the same person until you pointed it out. The suggestion that the delete votes may not be valid for that reason is completely WP:UNCIVIL--Rusf10 (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In preparation of deletions one should thoroughly check for available sources. Moving to a common name also helps giving articles a fair shot and elevates discussions. After you move the article, the search string you provide helps finding relevant sources. Your repetitive use of the term "votes" for opinions throughout many county politician nominations and the continuous arguing strengthen the impression that you do not want this, fair shots. In fair shots, users aren't potentially (even without your intention) misled. That was my point. gidonb (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb:First of all, I've never heard of someone moving an article prior to nominating it for deletion. In fact doing so, would probably be met with criticism and rightly so. If I made any major change to the article before the nomination it would look like I was trying to sabotage the article. The article name was chosen by its creator, not me, so any criticism of the title should be directed at that person, not me. Moreover, your comments insult the intelligence of everyone involved with this discussion. I can't believe that someone would be "misled" because a person's middle initial is used. Those search links included in deletion discussions are rarely useful, it helps to do the search yourself without them (and I think most people here know that). Just a including a middle initial limits results, not including it can expand results to include other people with the same name. Perhaps a better search term would be "Jan Gardner" executive OR "Jan Gardner" Maryland. Most people can figure that out on their own, they don't need you to tell them middle initials may not be used in sources..--Rusf10 (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said they were. But local and routine are not antonyms, either — it is entirely possible for a source to be simultaneously both local and routine. (Frex, the purely expected reporting of municipal election results is not, in and of itself, evidence for the notability of an individual city councillor, and neither is an obituary or a wedding notice.) Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some Keep opinions are based on arbitrary assertions rather than policy. It is perhaps necessary to revisit WP:NPOLITICIAN since folks often invoke it without specifying which of the criteria are met. Hey ho, let's go:
Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (state wide/province wide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature [are considered to be notable]. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
Also [considered to be notable are] major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.
Note here two things: (1) Just being an elected official does not guarantee notability and Wikipedia states this without any caveat about the official being the first in something, e.g. the first woman to hold that office, etc. (2) The part about the official being considered notable if they pass the "primary notability criterion", which is WP:GNG, is only considered if the politician already belongs to either category of the two, i.e. "international, etc" or "major figure."
What all this means is that if we have a politician holding (for example) an international office, we cannot assume notability just because of that! They have to meet WP:GNG as well! Our dear subject may meet GNG but does not belong in any of the categories laid out in WP:NPOLITICIAN. That's the policy, in black and white; and green. -The Gnome (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That strikes me as the opposite of what NPOLITICIAN says. In particular, NPOLITICIAN is a part of NBIO. BASIC comes before NPOLITICIAN, as does the note about all of the additional criteria (NPOL being one of the additional criteria) that: "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Smmurphy(Talk) 19:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Sorry, misread your comment. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to: "The part about the official being considered notable if they pass the "primary notability criterion", which is WP:GNG, is only considered if the politician already belongs to either category of the two, i.e. "international, etc" or "major figure.", where does it say in publshed wikipedia policy: "is only considered if the politician already belongs to either category"? Please provide links to let other editors verify the claim. ThanksDjflem (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm presenting the logical, deductive conclusion from the text of the policies, Djflem. Ask yourself: Why have all those subject-specific criteria if WP:GNG is enough? Why have WP:GNG if the subject-specific criteria are enough? The respective wordings make it very clear why. Because both criteria have to be met. My neighbor is an author of kids books and she gets a write up in the city newspaper almost every day (because she creates trouble everywhere she goes, etc) which means she meets WP:GNG; but she does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, so she does not get a Wikipedia article about herself. Now imagine that a person is a quite well known and hugely admired author among the literati, which means she does meet WP:NAUTHOR. Yet, she gets no significant mentions in the media, not even in the literary press. Ergo, she does not also meet WP:GNG. Result: as per previous. -The Gnome (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You might want to take a look also at this little discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that this interpretation, that both SNG and GNG need to be met to ensure suitability, is not the consensus on how the guidelines must be interpreted. At the recent discussion, Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Proposal to Change Notability for Politicians, various views were discussed and there was clearly no consensus in favor if this interpretation. One does not need to take an originalist position, but it should be noted that the first SNG that was a guideline was NMUSIC. One week into that SNG's existance, in January 2005, it was expressed that it was a "rule of thumb" meant to help users decide which bands should have pages, and was not meant to be necessary or sufficient. This was in the days when it was possible to write articles withour sources (for instance, this was the page about Ella Fitzgerald during that same week). NBIO introduced special cases for different types of professions in February 2007. At that time, something like GNG was the central criteria and the special criteria were explained as: "The above is the central criterion for inclusion. Below are some criteria that make it very likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." Again, there is no need to interpret the guidelines in any particular way, they are vague because there is consensus that leeway is allowable. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 22:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SatisfiesWikipedia:BASIC, which states: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability and People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below, One of the below, and thus additional, criteria being Wikipedia:POLITICIAN.Djflem (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Almost half the references here are primary sources that don't assist in building notability at all — and the amount of reliable sourcing that's left over is not an unusual or unexpected volume of coverage for a county councillor to have in her own local media. If this is enough to make a county councillor notable, then it's automatically open season on every county councillor in North America getting a Wikipedia article too, because every county councillor can always show at least as much coverage as this. But we have an established consensus that county councillors are not automatically presumed notable just for existing, so a county councillor has to be shown as a special case, over and above most other county councillors, to qualify for an article on here — but the volume and range of coverage that's simply expected to exist for every county councillor everywhere is not enough to show that this particular county councillor is special. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of "unusual or unexpected volume of coverage" anywhere in published Wikipedia policy, is there? If so, please identify where (other than above) its location to other editors. Is the above additional criteria an addition to the already additional criteria, beyond basic criteria: "may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria"? (FYI: this article is about a county executive, not county councillor, which was mentioned 4x) Djflem (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "unusual or unexpected volume of coverage" does not have to be a verbatim cut and paste from a notability statement to still be true. Wikipedia does not accept county councillors as automatically notable just for existing, but local media coverage always exists for all county councillors — so if "media coverage exists" were all it took to exempt a county councillor from NPOL, then every county councillor would always be exempted from NPOL. The way to make a county councillor notable enough for inclusion is to show that he or she is significantly more notable than most other county councillors — which does require that the media coverage goes above and beyond what most other county councillors also have: much deeper coverage than usual (e.g. a full-on biography of her was published by a notable publishing house), much wider coverage than usual, and/or much more coverage than usual. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Djflem, with feeling: The key words in the text of WP:BASIC, are presumed and may. If a subject meets the basic criteria, it still may not make it onto an article! Yet, if it does meet the additional criteria, is triumphantly sails in. (The text does not put it this way exactly but that's the gist of it ) So, simply invoking BASIC does not go too far. Otherwise, we'd have a tsunami of notability and an article for every creature, construct, and idea under the sun. -The Gnome (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to "presumed" and "may"
Unambiguously, BASIC says: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AND "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."
It does not say that anyone or anything is "presumed notable" if there are no sources to back it up. (This article has sources/references which satisfy the requirement outlined above.)
BASIC continues:
"People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." Please note, without additional criteria.
Again, no ambiguity. It does not say maybe. It says may be considered, which means: can be considered, are allowed to be considered, are permitted to be considered.Djflem (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The word "maybe" is the two words "may" and "be" joined together. The term X "may be" Y (e.g. John Smith may be notable) means that X might be Y but is not necessarily Y. It means, X is possibly Y or may become Y. That's an important difference.
A subject passing WP:BASIC as well as passing WP:GNG is not guaranteed to have an article in Wikipedia. And that is unambiguously stated, with emphasis too, in the policy text. Here 'tis: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. And the text, not by accident, elaborates more on the presumption of notability so that it's crystal clear: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not. Guess what Wikipedia is not? It is not an indiscriminate depository of information.
It is first and foremost an encylopaedia.
Well, then, if BASIC and GNG do not give a pass, in and by themselves, to an article for inclusion in Wikipedia, then do we need something more as reasons for inclusion? Enter the additional criteria; and, as always, our good judgement. -The Gnome (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having finally got a grip on this, it strikes me that the arguments presented by Bearcat and The Gnome are those which are most policy-compliant. We have subject-specific guidelines for a reason and if we ignore them then the floodgates open, in this case for an article on every councillor and council official who has ever existed and garnered three mentions in local newspapers. There is nothing I can see that is extra-ordinary about this person other than perhaps being the first holder of an office (but then where would we draw the line on that criteria? the tenth? the fiftieth?). - Sitush (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She is a county executive and extra-ordinary (or special) is not a criteria, though being a first might qualify as that.Djflem (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. She fails NPOL, and, as I said, where would we draw the line on "firsts". Much of the sourcing is very poor. and whether you consider this in the context of being an out-and-out politician or a civil servant-type of role, it is not enough. - Sitush (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain, RAN, why the "slippery slope" argument is a "logical fallacy"? As far as I know, it's a legitimate if often crude argument against initiating something. It may not carry much weight in a dialogue but there does not appear to be "logical fallacy" in it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wow this is a trainwreck. Meets BASIC and GNG if not NPOL. Just want to note to the closing admin that Rusf10 should not have struck FloridaArmy's vote above, as the ban was only pot in place after the vote. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 17:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not pass WP:NPOLITICIAN with just news reporting. This type of office has been shown to be considered non-notable. Just inundating an article with references does not prove notability. I am all for a !vote somewhere to get rid of all admins having only moderators, get rid of all policies and guidelines, and have articles on all things known to mankind, but this is not the place. Since we currently have policies, guidelines, and even accepted essays (along with admins) then either these policies and guidelines should be at least considered or a good reason to ignore all the "rules" given. Being in the news and newsworthy is not the same as being notable. Citing 25 references that include 2 dead links and a host of news reports does not advance notability. There are seven primary sources (six to Frederick County) and one admitted press release. There are six references to the Washington Post, three to the News-Post, two to the Frederick News, and one to the Baltimore Sun. Three are separate local reportings. I am just noting that of all the references (24 because I took one out and two are dead links) there are seven that can even be considered for notability. Six references are to mundane news like "New development on small lots would require costly expansions of the County's water and sewer systems.", the "hotly-debated" proposal to build a trash incinerator" that was scrapped, and that the subject will "not recommend raising taxes". How are we doing on the seven acceptable for notability references so far? Here is a slippery slope problem with this type of article: There are 3000 counties in the US, in 47 states, and 840 have this form of county government plus Louisiana has 64 parishes. Every single one of them will have a local newspaper, TV channel, or radio station giving the results of elections, news reportings leading up to a winner, and even some post election breaking news. This form of government is not rare just new to this geographical area. Is the claimed notability only because the subject is a woman? If this is true then why did it not make national news? I hate to mention this but as of the 2010 Census women outnumber men so this does not seem to be out of the ordinary in all but nine states. If we are attempting to add "all things in the world" to Wikipedia then lets change the "rules". If we count news reporting, and that she is a woman, we can conjure up notability. Being a "new" political division would be more appropriate on a county article. On the plus side we can agree to this article and open the door to around 900 more blue links. Corrections: 900+ because per user-Rusf10 the first male, then first African-American, first LGBT, etc... would qualify. This will bolster Wikipedia's article count, new stubs, and coverage statistics, but will likely not be enduringly notable pass the next election. Otr500 (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She certainly meets WP:BASIC. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You probably commented without reading what Otr500 wrote, e.g. "There are 3000 counties in the US, in 47 states, and 840 have this form of county government, plus Louisiana has 64 parishes." Otherwise, you would've understood that all the folks in them government agencies meet WP:BASIC. If you insist that the article be kept for the United States of America, then you're obliged to agree we do the same for all similar officials for every country under the sun or orbiting around it. Revisit. -The Gnome (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF; moreover, your assertion IS NOT TRUE. I know that many politicians fail WP:BASIC because they have NOT "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I know this because I regularly iVote to delete politicians in cases where such sourcing cannot be found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you clam that I do not assume good faith on your part (or on anyone else's part)? What's the basis of this sudden accusation? I repeat, most of the myriads of local pols and agency staff do meet WP:BASIC in some or other capacity. And that was the point being made by Otr500. I simply extended the logic behind using BASIC as a criterion in the case of government staff and politicians who (by the very nature of their job) are publicity seekers and local-media magnets. That's all. -The Gnome (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I want to point out that this is why I generally do not !vote on AfDs of living politicians and business executives (including this one). I think a good case could be made for their suitability for an encyclopedia article. However, local news sources may not be neutral, as the subject seek publicity and media sources seek stories. So if an individual gets only local coverage, the article may fail NPOV. I do not think that it necessarily does, as unless there is evidence of poor news practices, it is probably good to assume even local coverage can be neutral. But so long as the subject is living, I don't feel like this tension is clearly resolved in favor of neutrality. So I think NPOV/NOTPROMO is a valid concern and I do not feel it is necessary to !vote keep. Once an individual has died, NOTPROMO concerns are, to me, greatly reduced. I understand this does not solve the problem of the possibility of thousands of minor political figures getting pages, a problem I think is a feature and not a bug of BASIC/CCPOL. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikimedia suddenly running out of server space over text bits rather than image megabytes? This particular politician is so widely covered that she easily meets the GNG. Notwithstanding the attractiveness and drama of your "other stuff exists" argument and screaming bold format, each person should be reviewed on her or his own merits. gidonb (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
gidonb, I have never used lack of bandwidth in Wikipedia (!) as an argument in any discussion, and certainly not here. The issue is notability of politicians and government administrators based on the criteria invoked by some editors. To the point: E.M.Gregory stated the subject of the contested article meets WP:BASIC, as if that settles the matter, and as if by meeting WP:BASIC the subject does not need to cover WP:NPOLITICIAN as well.
This simplified (yea, simplistic) view in AfD discusions is getting annoying, hence the bold fonts. There are 3000 counties in the US, in 47 states, and 840 have the same form of county government as the subject's county, as Otr500 pointed out. In every one of them, all pols and admins have had their write ups in the media, to the extent of meeting WP:BASIC. But that alone is not evidence of Wikinotability. Reviewing the sources for the estimable subject of our article we find no more than the basic stuff. WP:POLITICIAN is not met. End of story. -The Gnome (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have over 3,000 images of kittens at Wikimedia Commons. If we delete 3 of them it will recover enough space for 3,000 text articles for the English Wikipedia on the Wikimedia Foundation servers in Florida. 4TB of storage is less than $100 now. --RAN (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You two guys are making a strawman. No one said the article should be deleted because of space constraints.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again the fallacious slippery slope argument. If we let one in, we have to let all in ... no one is arguing for wikipedia:inherent notability by virtue of their office. The argument is that this individual meets WP:GNG. The argument that the office has inherent notability can be made in the future. 5 years ago high schools had no inherent notability, now they do. 10 years ago all inhabited communities did not have inherent notability, now they do. --RAN (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fine description of "slippery slope", me thinks... --Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but it doesn't address why the slippery slope argument is being made here. No keep votes have discussed why this particular individual meets GNG, just that basic coverage is established - but this coverage is about the topic of the county as a whole, not about her. (As of now, no keep voters have said anything other than "meets WP:GNG" in their initial vote.) There is NO source here which talks about HER specifically as a person, nor is there any source which talks about HER outside the context of the role she does not pass WP:NPOL for. The slippery slope here would be interpreting GNG in a way we haven't done in order to keep this article, which would eventually allow county executives to become implicitly notable, because the sourcing in this article is that poor (in spite of the large number of sources). SportingFlyer talk 21:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
High schools do not have inherent notability. That entire issue is moot following the recent RfC concerning WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. What we're seeing here is an example of rampant inclusionism and, yes, the only slippery slope is the one SportingFlyer mentions. Unfortunately, the entire AfD process favours this type of filibustering because "no consensus" defaults to "keep". It is actually a contravention of WP:BURDEN and a real pain because it adds more maintenance for trivial benefit. - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential remark : RAN claims that "5 years ago high schools had no inherent notability, now they do." I, for one, would be grateful if I could be directed to the Wikipedia text, chapter and verse, which resolves the issue of the presumed/alleged "inherent notability" of schools. As far as I know, no such resolve has been reached yet. If it had, that discussion would not degenerate into a wild saloon of strongly opposing viewpoints, with little regard to the policy on notability. We seem to be OK with violating the policy. But that does not make a new policy; it's malpractice. -The Gnome (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or very simply, Consensus through editing.Djflem (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When we have consensus editing that directly and explicitly violates extant policy, there are three choice paths ahead: (A) Stop violating policy; (B) Keep on merrily violating policy, which in effect lessens enforcement in all policies; or (C) Re-write policy to reflect consensus editing. You seem to be happy with B. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why the slippery slope argument is being made? I wonder if some just see words and make comments. I can find 25 mundane everyday local news reports for about any person running for any office in the US. There is a push, that has been ongoing since I have been editing, that "if" there is a reliable reference (it doesn't matter about what or if passing mention) then there is justification for inclusion. I gave a detailed analysis of the provided references mentioned as "well sourced". This will be hard to argue against so we redirect and go in circles. That is sure to get a "no consensus" right? Six references about nothing but mundane crap does not advance notability nor does primary sources. There is a difference between well sourced for content and well sourced for notability but then most of us already know this yet some are arguing (I suppose) that there is an exception here. The comments that this opens a can of worms and creates a slippery slope is valid. The subject is a county executive that oversees daily county operations and has a "County Council" like a County commission, Board of supervisors, or a Police Jury (with a President) in Louisiana. Blue links have already been made on some of the commissioners on the Frederick County article using mundane everyday local reporting. This is just in the US so how many heads of county type governments worldwide will this open up, then the commissioner type positions and where will it stop? We have policies and guidelines so either trash them and let's have fun with chaos or consider that there is almost ALWAYS a cause and effect. The more I see that other stuff is not a good argument the more I see it exactly put out there.
Some attempt to allow Wikipedia to be inundated with pseudo biographies using sources that are about junk (look at my examples above) and stating the subject passes GNG. I am telling anyone here that I can find 25 local references on anyone running for office in the US and claim the same thing. That is the slippery slope and is as plain as day. IF that is allowed on a County Executive or a Police Jury President (and the residual adding of commissioner or jury members) using the same local sources that will provide 25 to 30 sources of the pre-, election, and post- results. In Louisiana, with the good-ole-boy system and corruption I can probably find even more. A million dollar cattle rustling ring (backwoods stuff right?) has been broken and there is likely ties to a police jury member or even a president. I know I can get several crap sources that mention a name or two for some new stub articles. A source that a drain has to be replaced, or an incinerator installed (or not), and a host of mundane everyday crap. I can spend the rest of the year making pseudo-biographies on the 64 parish presidents in Louisiana, and another 200 to 300 on the jury members that I assure you I can provide the same level of crap sources found on this subject. I don't mind this as there is reportedly unlimited space and those seeking "all things in the world" to be added to Wikipedia will help !vote to keep right? We have consensus and drew a line and accordingly this position does not warrant a stand-alone article let alone a pseudo biography. If the position does not warrant an article then what possible in the world is notable about this subject? My bad, she is a member of the Democratic Party so that has to be it. That is all there is to it. Damn, I should have !voted "keep" regardless of policies and guidelines because who needs them anyway? Otr500 (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not convinced by the rationale (put forward in the nomination) that an independently elected county executive should somehow be treated differently than mayors, where our general standard to meet our notability guideline for cities with a large population is some significant news coverage (more than that they exist, but no general expectation for national coverage). Instead some argue that a county executive should be treated like a small-population mayor (or other elected official, like a school board member), where the coverage is expected to be deep and have national coverage. What this subject appears to have is the title of county executive of a population close to 250,000, with primarily local coverage (or wire stories) of her work as a county executive (and I agree that the Washington Post can be considered local in this instance). I lean toward the former, that population size and the function of the office (like how we evaluate a mayor), affect the standard that should be applied in assessing notability of a county executive. --Enos733 (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every county or parish has at least one large town or three or four smaller ones that would equal around that 250,000 mark. A problem is also that when a person wins (or is appointed in some cases) a position such as this and that is "all there is period" then we would have to ignore WP:BLP1E and the "lets include everything on Wikipedia" side will still try to pull all the local routine coverage to add up to passing "basic". If all we needed was "basic" then pray-tell why all the other notability guidelines? "Basic does mean just that right? This subject has done nothing extraordinary except win an election to a county executive position. This is where we stop trying to wikilawyer one small exception and look at the several policies and guidelines. Even with that if you check out all the references on the article that are not primary then what is there for notability? Some are trying to argue that there is notability other than the position and I simply ask what is it? For notability we are suppose to count multiple references from the same source as one. Not counting the six that cover nothing we are down to about two sources that are still related to the position and not the person. Otr500 (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to List of United States counties and county equivalents, in 2013, there were approximately 40-45 counties that have a population over 1 million, about 100 more that have a population above 500,000 and about 140 more with a population of greater than 250,000 (or about 9 percent of all counties in the United States). Not every county has an independently-elected county executive. All I suggest is that the an independently-elected county executive is similar in function to a mayor, and the standard used for individuals in those positions should be similar. --Enos733 (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no actual guideline about mayors and city size for inherent notability. They must all pass WP:GNG. A search on the notability archives is a good starting point: [8] No mayor has inherent notability due to city size: however, mayors (and even city council members) may pass WP:GNG only for their role for larger cities, and bringing forth a relatively non-notable mayor of a large city to an AfD may well be an exercise in time-wasting (I've considered it myself a couple of times when I couldn't improve the article any further and decided to just walk away). SportingFlyer talk 07:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:POLOUTCOMES (which is a useful guide and description of previous discussions): "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office)." This is where I am starting from. --Enos733 (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Enos733. So, what do we do with someone holding the office of county executive? Does every county executive automatically merit an article? (One that will "usually" survive an AfD.) Or does the executive have to meet the criteria for a mayor, outlined in WP:POLOUTCOMES? Counties are geographically larger than cities and towns, so the extent of authority is larger, at least in terms of area. However, I do not read Wikipedia as placing county chiefs above mayors, in terms of the notability each office respectively provides. But other editors may have a different viewpoint. In fact, this AfD may be a good opportunity to make this point clearer, and spend less time in similar future AfDs. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest extreme caution in any use of WP:POLOUTCOMES. First, it's an essay, not a policy, like the guidelines that have been debated. Second, its just another way of saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but for some reason somewhat acceptable? Perhaps because it describes stuff in the abstract, not specific instances - which isn't a good reason. Third, its not clear whether the points are an accurate characterization of those previous AFDs. Nor is there any record of the unique considerations behind each of those AFDs.Bangabandhu (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Outcomes provides guidance about how similarly situated subjects have been resolved at AfD. Without OUTCOMES (or a similar look back at past decisions), we would be starting from scratch every time about the meaning of particular policies. For instance, knowing that statewide candidates are usually redirected to an article about the campaign provides a useful standard - that we agree that campaigns are notable, even if the candidates are not. Similarly, with mayors, there is a rule of thumb between regionally prominent and other cities. --Enos733 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:POLOUTCOMES text is not an essay and neither is it a policy or a guideline itself. It is intended to supplement and clarify the Wikipedia guideline about notability, with emphasis on politicians and admins of state agencies. As such, they are part (an extension) of the policy they respectively clarify and supplement. -The Gnome (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's one characterization of WP:POLOUTCOMES, another is that is an unnuanced, broad, and potentially inaccurate way that previous debates have been decided. Many AFDs and the entry under consideration have unique features; this gets lost when all that's retained is several bullet points. There is no real detail in POLOUTCOMES or links to any of the specific discussion. There's no "why" in POLOUTCOMES, just a (potentially inaccurate) description of "what". If POLOUTCOMES were to be really helpful or usable, it would give specific reference to previous AFDs that would help editors understand why a particular decision was made. Referencing POLOUTCOMES produces a self-reinforcing decision which may have, at its basis, been wrong. It baffles me that one can't cite specific previous decisions, because WP:OtherStuffExists but can cite WP:POLOUTCOMES, even though the latter doesn't provide any depth for why a particular decision was reached. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have it exactly wrong, Bangabandhu. Reality is the exact opposite of your assertions. WP:POLOUTCOMES does provide "real detail," and being the outcome of related AfDs it has become consensus policy and we certainly can invoke and reference it!
From the looks of it, you disagree with WP:POLOUTCOMES ("unnuanced, broad, and potentially inaccurate", "no real detail", "no 'why'", "may have been wrong", etc) but that is simply your personal viewpoint. I fully respect your take on it but I cannot ignore that WP:POLOUTCOMES is part of policy. Which means that, yes, it is an enforceable decision. We either have policy or we don't. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that fixing a number would be a start. 250,000 is the number that a US Representative has. 200,000 would exclude all but maybe 2 cities and 2 parishes in Louisiana. GNG does not mean we are suppose to take routine news reports-- especially specific to the job and not the subject, maybe good content refernces --add them up and claim passing GNG as proposed above. IF there are not BLP references then the subject and position should be covered on the county artic. Otr500 (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There seems inconsistency as to which politicians are considered for "automatic inclusion". When the population of represented/constituent area (as well as the level of office) not taken into account, it creates skewed situations where persons who are state legislators from states with population of less than a million, such as Wyoming (pop 580,000), and city council members from so-called global cities representing districts (such as District 2 (New York City Council), with a population of less than 175,000), get an automatic pass, while some county executives, head of executive branch&highest elected official, do not. Certainly some county executives, such as those from Suffolk County, New York (pop 1.2million), Fairfax County, Virginia, (pop 1.1 million), and the Cuyahoga County Executive, OH (pop 1.2 million), for example, wield major influence. While mayors have long been part of the political landscape, the public office of county executive is relatively new to it (and misunderstood, as seen in some comments in this thread). Clearly Wikipedia needs more articles about the offices and the persons holding them.Djflem (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, there are some good reasons for the supposed inconsistency - often because this is a global encyclopedia and that the county/parish level of government does not necessarily exist in all places, as compared to cities or subnational governments (states, provinces, etc.). --Enos733 (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing "supposed" about it. To discuss other stuff, as mention above, a cursory view of county will show that that tier of government exists in many places including two of the 2nd & 4th largest countries in the world (India 1.2 billion w/ districts and Indonesia/261million regencies). Also, many nations don't have a comparable state-level tier of government, yet EN:Wikipedia does includes articles about US state politicians. More absurdly it automatically includes/makes default notable some state and local legislators such as Jerry Apa (SD) and Allen Jaggi (WY) and Peter Leon (Toronto) and Michael Abel (NYC), but not some county executives, mayors, or constitutional officers. How is that rational, let alone encyclopedic? Seems glaringly inadequate, and, to be fair, not objective crtieria. This inconsistency also does not address the question about constituent population represented. Something is broken.Djflem (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Population does not equal notability, especially in the American political system. Anyone who claims otherwise must be unfamiliar with the system that was established when America was founded. Does not the Senator from Wyoming and the senator from California have equal power, even though the senator from California represents nearly 80 times the population that the senator from Wyoming does? The founding fathers did not want power to be determined by population alone. Each state has different government structures too. Despite its relatively small population, New Hampshire has over 400 members of its state legislature, yet a much more populated state like Arizona has less than 100. Liekwise, not all county governments are the same eithier. Some have broad powers to pass laws and other do little more than carry out administrative duties dictated by the state. In some cases a mayor may actually have more power than the leader of the county his city is in. The point is each politician's notability must be considered by their own actions, not by the population they represent.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why Jerry Apa is inherently notable and Jan Gardner is not in Wikipedia world? 20:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Isn't that ridiculous?! And its been that way for a long time, too. Think about all the entries that have been lost, all the hours of work that were for nothing, and all of the voters and citizens who are less informed about their leadership. The threshold for inclusion as a local politician/executive is so high, its conceivable that someone could pass AFD on their own merits before they became a local politician. Then, after election, as editors now interpret guidelines, the local politician would have the scarlet letter of local politician non-notability and be subject to AFD. Unfortunately, I can't link to such entries, as they've already been deleted. Its awful, to the detriment of the project and its readership, and to what positive end? Bangabandhu (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This interpretation of the guidelines is utterly ridiculous, to borrow a term. If a person gets Wikinotable outside of politics, entering politics does not change the criteria upon which the person's Wikinotability is assessed! Since, Bangabandhu, you find that situation "awful," I challenge you to produce examples of articles where the subject was notable before but not after becoming a pol and so were deleted. Friendly advice: Don't bother! Even if you find such an article, you'll see that the subject had been originally non-notable.
As to the sorrow expressed over "all the entries that have been lost, all the hours of work that were for nothing," well, boo hoo. I have precisely zero sympathy for folks who use Wikipedia as their personal blog, a place to promote their beloved personal favorites, or simply to see their "name" in lights. Mindless serial creation of articles has become a pest in Wikipedia, which is why the AfD process is getting so much work. All those folks who put in work-hours to create articles that were deleted deserve kudos for their effort, and encouragement to carry on, but nothing more is to be learned by that. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Per Bearcat, Otr500, SN54129, Sitush, Gnome et al....
Unsigned comment by Winged Blades of Godric
There's no irony here, the coverage is consistent with what we've been discussing and I've already mentioned the flood coverage above. The first link you present has only a quote from her and the second is local media coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the sake of accuracy, the U.S. News and World Report/ AP story contains two quotes: Heavy rainfall in a Maryland county over the past two days has caused flooding and damaged roads, and local officials prepared for even more precipitation Thursday. Frederick County has received nearly 10 inches (25 centimeters) of rain, officials said. Frederick County Executive Jan Gardner declared a state of emergency to free up any resources needed to deal with more flooding and any additional damage. 'We are not restricting travel or asking residents to do anything immediately other than to make sure they use extreme caution during this time period,' Gardner said. 'The state of emergency is an administrative tool.' Meanwhile, the city of Frederick has asked residents to limit water use. City officials say the city's wastewater treatment plant is at risk of additional overflow. Gardner compared the rainfall to a 16-hour storm that caused historic flooding of Carroll Creek in 1976. A similar storm on Tuesday dumped about 7 inches (18 centimeters) in less than three hours. 'The massive amount of rain simply has overwhelmed already stressed drainage systems, sewage systems and stormwater ponds,' Gardner said. Yes, it's just coverage of a local flood. But over the 20 years during which she has been in office, there have been several thousand articles that cover her role in shaping water and development policy in Frederick County. It was the extraordinary volume of hits that first caused me to take a close look at her when this came up on the AfD list; MILL county politicians do not get this kind of news overage. Last month's coverage was about a flood, not about policy, but so many of them are about her role in policy that a good article can be created.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:GOOGLEHITS--Rusf10 (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jan_H._Gardner&oldid=1107319424"