- 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jim Zeigler (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)
This article is one big self-promotion, almost entirely edited by a single author, and seems to be nothing more than a promotional page. The subject asserts no significance, and the content is largely non-significant. This has been CSD'd before and denied with the administrator stating "terrible article, but there is a claim of importance and it's not irredeemable. plus, there are sources. take it to AfD if you like". Since then, no worthy changes have been made to make the article better, only the same author adding more promotional material. Further, the author has taken the page and copy-pasted the content onto "zeiglerstory.com" (author's name still intact as logged in), as further proof that this is nothing more than self-promotion with no signifigance. More, the primary author Zeiglereldercare, has been blocked as promotional. According to a blog post attributed to the subject himself, published less than 2 weeks ago, "Jim Zeigler, a candidate for Alabama State Auditor, is using Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, to reach voters. Zeigler registered the domain name ZeiglerStory.com and linked it to the lengthy Wikipedia article detailing his life." Open SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historicalrevision. (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Some pretty clear WP:AUTOBIO, WP:NOTPROMOTION issues here. Lots of low quality sources covering this guy, but I'm struggling to come up with any mainstream coverage. NickCT (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article is problematic for all the reasons cited above. However, as a former elected member of the Alabama Public Service Commission, a statewide elected office of considerable significance, Zeigler passes WP:POLITICIAN #1; see also [1] and the hundreds of Google results from the search string <zeigler alabama site:google.com/newspapers> . Stubbing or WP:TNT might be remedies of choice here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Arxiloxos is probably right about re "WP:POLITICIAN #1". Frankly, I'm not sure I really like that rule. It seems that it would potentially capture all sorts of folks who were in fact not notable. Ah well..... maybe WP:TNT is the answer. NickCT (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be the best course of action. However, it is worth noting that the position held by this politician has no other biographies. BigDwiki (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As submitter. BigDwiki (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think vandalism/COI is a major problem here (as I've suggested at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jim Zeigler). I did some cleanup, deleting a bunch of the cruft. I agree that he passes #1 of WP:Politician. Also his lawsuit got a 1-page mention in a book. So, for me, he just passes the bar for notability. Further editing/improvement is needed, for sure (to start, please can somebody fix my <ref> naming/grouping errors?). (For more references, the online version of the newspaper would be a start Al.com) Semi-protection until November would be advisable (since I assume this is mostly election-related vandalism). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The many edits we've made to this article over the years to try to bring it into compliance have been continuously stifled with the same promotion. It is high time to just delete. 209.105.231.36 (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Although at first glance, he seems to meet criterion no. 1 of WP:POLITICIAN, that guideline (and it is only a guideline, really a gloss on WP:GNG) seems to contemplate statewide unitary offices, where authority is vested in an individual, not shared as part of a multi-member agency such as the commission here; the obvious exception being state legislatures or state supreme (and maybe appellate) courts. A spot-check of other commissioners noted in Alabama Public Service Commission who have articles seems to indicate that all have some substantial independent basis for notability, beyond being a commission member. For examples, Susan Parker went on to become state auditor (a unitary office); B. B. Comer and Gordon Persons went on to become governor of the state; Jim Folsom, Jr. went on to become lieutenant governor. There don't appear to be any other members of this commission who have articles where the sole basis of their notability is their membership in the commission. TJRC (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't add much not already said as arguments to delete, as they were all well expressed and rooted in policy and guidelines. Being a member of a commission in of itself does not seem to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY or even WP:POLITICIAN. And the promotional and COI aspects have poisoned it. — Becksguy (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2014 (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.