- 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. Sandstein 07:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Darrin Sharif (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)
City councilman, fails WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 02:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 02:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. City councillors do not get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing. A city councillor gets an article in one of two ways: either (a) they serve on the city council of an internationally prominent global city on the order of New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Toronto or London, or (b) they can be referenced to a depth and volume and range of reliable source coverage that marks them out as significantly more notable than the norm for city councillors in non-global cities. Just showing a handful of purely local coverage is not enough to get a city councillor over Path B, because every city councillor in every city could always show as much purely local coverage as has been shown here. If he'd accomplished something that was garnering him coverage not just locally, but in Chicago and Los Angeles and Seattle too, then there'd be a case for notability — but if the only evidence you can show of extralocal coverage is a post to Daily Kos, then that's not good enough: Daily Kos is a blog, not a reliable source for the purposes of establishing wikinotability. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently, Bearcat has manufactured his version of what policy should be and then insists that this article fails that manufactured policy. The relevant policy, WP:POLITICIAN, makes no mention of prominent global cities or some sort of more notable than the norm or any of the nonsense cited above, erroneously, as fact. What Bearcat describes seems to have been whipped entirely out of thin air.Above and beyond "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office", WP:POLITICIAN also indicates a presumption of notability for "2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. [and] 3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, 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'." In his case, both criteria 2 and 3 are met with significant in-depth coverage about the subject in strong reliable and verifiable sources. Major state / regional publications like The Star-Ledger cover hundreds of municipalities, but limit in-depth coverage to a small handful of municipalities. Passing off such coverage as "local" is unjustified by any policy or guideline. The arguments for deletion ignore WP:GNG, which is satisfied, or the sources merely ignored. Alansohn (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC) (Strike comment made in violation of an IBAN Jbh Talk 00:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
- Except that no, I haven't "manufactured" anything. WP:POLOUTCOMES explicitly reveals that I'm correct about the state of where Wikipedia consensus lands on city councillors. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What "significant coverage" would that be? None of the references hit all three: passing mentions/routine election news in reliable sources that are independent of the subject -- local newspapers -- or short subject-provided bios in unreliable sources that are not independent of the subject. Hell, one of the sources doesn't even MENTION the subject. Also, "presumed" does NOT equal "entitled". --Calton | Talk 04:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RS doesn't say that geographic location of the news sources renders them reliable or unreliable. Reliable is reliable. (edit) Since Alansohn's argument was struck, I'll copy it here (in part) since I'm not under any kind of IBAN and I thought it was persuasive: The relevant policy, WP:POLITICIAN, makes no mention of prominent global cities...Above and beyond "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office", WP:POLITICIAN also indicates a presumption of notability for "2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. [and] 3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, 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'." In his case, both criteria 2 and 3 are met with significant in-depth coverage about the subject in strong reliable and verifiable sources. Major state / regional publications like The Star-Ledger cover hundreds of municipalities, but limit in-depth coverage to a small handful of municipalities. Passing off such coverage as "local" is unjustified by any policy or guideline. The arguments for deletion ignore WP:GNG, which is satisfied, or the sources merely ignored. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- While it's true that Wikipedia does not have a rule that local coverage can never be used as referencing, we do have an established consensus that for certain "small fry" notability claims of purely local significance, where everybody who holds the same role anywhere could simply be expected to have a comparable degree of local coverage, a small smattering of local coverage is not in and of itself deemed enough to get a person at that level of significance into Wikipedia if it's all that can be shown. If all you had to do to get a city councillor over WP:GNG in lieu of failing WP:NPOL was show five or six pieces of purely routine local coverage in their local media, then every city councillor in every town or city on earth would always be able to show that.
City councillors are a class of topic who have to have a credible claim to being more notable than the norm for their group in order to qualify for Wikipedia articles — such as by being so widely recognized that their coverage expands well beyond just their own city's local media or by being so prominent locally that they actually had entire books written about them. It is not enough to just show a few pieces of purely local media coverage, because there's not a single city councillor on the planet who couldn't show a few pieces of purely local media coverage. It's the same as the reason why a local business has to clear WP:CORPDEPTH on the basis of a wider geographic range of media coverage — if all you had to do was throw a couple of pieces of purely local media coverage in the article and call that a WP:GNG pass in and of itself, there would never be any such thing as a non-notable business anymore. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 5 April 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.