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 keep. Let's hope someone takes the initiative to clean it up... J04n(talk page) 13:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Parker[edit]

Susan Parker (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)

I'm reviewing some of my first AfD discussions. This article was kept in 2007 on the basis that her positions implied notability  ; by our current standards, State Auditor and member of a state Public Service Commission are far from that. I can find nothing substantial inGoogle New, except about other people by the same name. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral She doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN, but there's a chance she passes WP:GNG due to the fact she was the first woman to be nominated for Senate in Alabama (she lost to Jeff Sessions.) The article glosses over this and I have no opinion on whether the sources show notability: basically happy either way as it's difficult to remove significant coverage from trivial political coverage here. [1] [2] [3] and gets a mention on pg. 168 of the book Alabama Getaway: The Political Imaginary and the Heart of Dixie and publicly endorsed Clinton in 2007. [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingFlyer (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do much better than this. None of the sources here are even remotely acceptable (two primary sources and a Blogspot blog, the end), and the article is written too much like a bulletpointed résumé rather than a proper encyclopedia article — and while there are certainly things here that might make her eligible to have an article if she could be shown to actually clear WP:GNG, there's nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to clear GNG. And passing GNG is a matter of showing that enough sourcing to clear GNG exists, not of simply theorizing that enough sourcing to clear GNG might exist. So I'd be willing to reconsider this if there were much, much better evidence of a GNG pass — but the sourcing here ain't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Auditor and Public Service Commissioner are both statewide elected offices in Alabama. Parker recieved over 500,000 votes in her victories in those elections. Is it really the case that offices like that do not pass NPOL/POLOUTCOMES? The language of NPOL/POLOUTCOMES seems to suggest that those offices would be sufficent to show an individual is a suitable subject for an article. Newspapers.com results suggest substantial coverage of Parker, if anyone is interested in expanding the article[6]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Itseems she was just one of the members of that commission. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the PSC has three members, a president and two commissioners. Parker was one of the two. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a WP:NPOL grey area, but WP:POLOUTCOMES discusses local politicians whose offices are not generally notable. I think that's definitely the case here, as lots of states have several minor statewide elected positions. I'd argue this one is as well. However, she was a losing candidate in a national race (assuming we define U.S. Senate as national) and there's a very good chance she passes WP:GNG without needing the WP:NPOL boost. SportingFlyer talk 04:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is a grey area and I disagree that auditor is a minor or non-notable state-level position. That said, in Alabama I think the progression for state elected positions is: Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Auditor, Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries, and PSC (3 positions). Other state positions include Board of Education (multiple positions), Chief Justice, Associate Justice (multiple positions), and Appeals Court Justices (multiple positions). I would agree that members of the BoE and Appeals Court are not presumed to be notable on the basis of their election. I think I would agree that members of the PSC are not presumed to be notable, in most states being an elected leader of the utilities district would not confer the presumption of notability. The PSC may be an exception, given how small the commission is, but an Alabama-specific exception seems silly. I generally think commissioners of a states chief industries can be presumed to have multiple in-depth reliable sources and thus be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but in some states there are commissioners of many industries, so again it would be complicated to have state-specific rules. The other six positions seem quite significant to me, with auditor as having the weakest case. Even so, in a state with an appointed auditor, the position requires a high level of political power as it is one of the highest patronage appointments available to the governor. In a state with an elected auditor, the case seems obvious to me, as in this case.

The issue here is that while it is trivial to show GNG (for example: Kitchen, Sebastioan. PSC's Parker decides not to run for District 5 seat. The Montgomery Adviser (Montgomery, Alabama) 31 Dec 2009, page 17), it is useful to have the SNG include state auditors as in practice SNG trumps GNG for politicians whose media coverage is limited only to their routine political activities. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep State auditor is one of the constitutional statewide elected offices in Alabama: Article V. Executive Department. Section 1. "The Executive Department shall consist of a Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, and Attorney General, who shall be chosen by the electors of the State, at the time and places at which they shall vote for Representatives.", clearly satisfying WP:NPOL #1 "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". 24.151.116.12 (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag for clean up. As she was the State auditor, passing WP:NPOL #1 See this (note, while recognizing this is a primary source, if there is a presumption of notability under WP:NPOL then all is needed is official confirmation the subject holds the position). However, as Bearcat says, the existing sources are quite problematic. --Enos733 (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep tag for sourcing, expansion. Here [7] is material on her involvement with a campaign to put an tax measure on the ballot as a referendum in 2009/10 in a reliable looking university press book Alabama Getaway: The Political Imaginary and the Heart of Dixie. Here [8] is a mention of an old-time sexist attack on her during her Senate campaign that makes me think that campaign may have gotten SIGCOV. (The South and America Since World War II, Oxford University Press). So I punched "Susan Parker" + Alabama into a proquest news archive search and did not do more than glance at the first page of hits - there are hundreds, they seem to indicate a high probability that there is material for an interesting article on her. I think the best thing to do is to keep it and home for an editor with the time and skill to improve it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 21 March 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.