- 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. Consensus was that it fails the relevant notability guidelines. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Proctor[edit]
- Bill Proctor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are two theoretical claims to notability in this article; politician and academic. The first is that he is a member of the Leon County Board of Commissioners from the 1st district (so not even countywide). Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they not automatically not notable. Reasons a local politician could be notable are longevity in service (Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore). His tenure is not significantly longer than other local officials nationally. While the article goes into (quite possibly) all of Proctor's negatives, none of them are so negative they create notability. Unless the situation is someone like Betty Loren-Maltese or Rita Crundwell where the wrongdoing are criminal felonies directly related to their public service role. A clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN. Similar consensus was drawn for Andy Anderson in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Anderson (politician) a man in an identical role in Brevard County, Florida. Brevard is far more populous than Leon.
The second claim to notability would be his teaching of political science. However, he meets none of the criteria under Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I have not through Google Scholar found a single published paper. He clearly fails notability, and thus the article should be deleted.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is clearly far from neutral and needs substantial improvement. However, it cites significant press coverage in major Florida papers, passing WP:GNG. A 25+-year politician with a long, public history of wanton ethics violations would seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN in the "major local" category. I agree he fails the academic notability criterion, but that's moot. QuintinK (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 25 years isn't a particularly notable period of time that differentiates him from others. Also without other content, how can these actually be contextualized compared to other politicians? Also, unless there's some third-party, non-partisan source that says he is by and a way the most ethics rules violating politician in history, the instances mentioned here have no context to decide if he's any worse than anyone else (though he likely is). Short of meeting the criteria for criminal conduct, I don't see how it qualifies. There are 8 citations. Of those, what coverage from "major newspapers" are all in his region. That would be like claiming a local politician in suburban New Jersey was famous because said politician got mentioned in the New York Times.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete GNews brings up several news articles mentioning Proctor, but I'm not seeing any real significant coverage as defined by NPOL. There's this article from the FAMU newspaper, but it's not exactly independent given he works there. All of the others appear routine in nature. I'm not entirely convinced simply being mentioned in multiple articles rises to the level of "major local" under our guidelines. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the sources such as this, this, this, and this (that that last one is 'Wayback machine' which always spooks me fore some reason), shows WP:GNG is met. Keep the article, but clean up if need be. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 04:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Current sourcing is a mix of local routine news, two permanently dead links, and a primary source document. Other news I can find is mostly from the Tallahassee Democrat or local Tallahassee news stations and on the line of fundraising, attacking another politician, running for re-election, matters regarding his son, and other routine news. This seems like a local municipal politician with a local scope in coverage. I'm not sure how reliable PC World, from the "highbeam.com" link, is for something as unrelated to computers and as contentious as an accusation of tax evasion on a BLP. I'm open to more information on that. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The editor Mpen320 puts forth an excellent argument for why this local official doesn’t yet merit his own article. I agree and vote to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft deleteKeep The article itself has potential of been improved because WP:GNG is slightly meant, that the reason I voted for soft delete. For me draftify would have been perfect.Princek2019 (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Princek2019, there is a Keep vote so Soft Delete is no longer possible. Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 6 January 2023 (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.