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. Black Kite (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard C. Young[edit]

Bernard C. Young (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)

Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Onel5969 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep, not notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Kharkiv07^Talk 01:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC) After looking more into this issue, while I argue that being a City Council member in Baltimore is not itself a high enough standard, he seems to have recived enough news coverage for both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Kharkiv07^Talk 21:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Elected member of the Baltimore City Council, a major metropolitan area in the United States. Therefore, passes the WP:POLITICIAN high bar, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Question - Hi Carrite - Am I simply misreading WP:POLITICIAN? Can't find where it says that members of city councils, even if they are major metropolitan areas, meet the criteria. Thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, however it seems that he's getting reliable news coverage, in my opinion. Kharkiv07^Talk 22:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Kharkiv07 - I think the coverage is a different question, and I'm not sure I'd agree. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but if he doesn't meet the politician criteria, he'd have to meet WP:GNG, and all the coverage is simply local coverage. When there is a story about Baltimore in other papers, he seems to occasionally get a mere mention, which, imho, hardly qualifies as "substantial coverage". But my question was more specific to Carrite's using that as a qualifier under the politician criteria. And I'm not attempting snarkiness in asking the question. If I've missed that as part of the criteria, I'd like to know. Regardless, thanks for your input. Onel5969 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• And that coverage is...where, exactly, in relation to the article as written? Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Okay, here's my take... WP:POLITICIAN is meant as a high bar, a blocking mechanism to keep unelected politicians on the make from spamming Wikipedia with campaign-related crap. My own view is that this is not inherently a bad thing (people come to WP looking for information and we are supposed to be the sum of human knowledge and all) but community consensus is pretty firm that this is verboten and I am disciplined enough as a Wikipedian to accept that. We all agree as well that election to a high office makes one notable. We all agree that election to a very low office does not imply that one is notable, but rather that ordinary GNG must be fulfilled. Where there is grey area, disagreement, involves those elected to mid-level offices — not unelected politicians on the make, not mayors of palookaville, but rather elected politicians to midlevel positions. Does the POLITICIAN high bar apply or not??? Here's what it is for me: if a subject is a mayor of a city of 50,000 or more people, or an elected city councilor of a city of 100,000 or more, they are in. That's an objective standard. Baltimore is way bigger than that. While there is nothing in WP:POLITICIAN that confirms my own personal metric, it does say "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." are in under criteria #2. There you go. Carrite (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment- Thanks for explaining your rationale. I thought I was missing something. Onel5969 (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  And this article, in its existing form, fails to demonstrate that he's actually satisfied the "who have received significant press coverage" part of the equation. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Local politicians require significant coverage. I see no evidence of such in the sources in this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the referencing can be substantively improved (also no prejudice against future recreation if a better version comes back later on.) While Baltimore is large enough that its city council can confer notability if the article is written and sourced properly, it's not a freebie that entitles anybody to keep a primary sourced profile if there's not enough reliable source coverage in the as-written iteration of the article to satisfy GNG with. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete One minor controversy isn't enough to establish notability for a Baltimore city councilman. Mangoe (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2015 (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.