Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Fuselier (2nd nomination)

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. czar 22:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fuselier[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am re-nominating this article for deletion under the same rationale (below) because it closed as no consensus and the only "keep" vote was an IP who was almost certainly User:Billy Hathorn evading his block.

Non-notable county sheriff. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The sources used in this article are: 1) a link to the funeral home memorial description for his predecessor, which appears to have been deleted by the funeral home; 2), 3), and 4) are simply a list of election results; 5) the bio of his successor on the St. Martin Parish Sheriff's department website; 6) a copy of a speech recognizing him on the LA state house floor (not uncommon); 7) a resolution more or less doing the same; 8) a link to the LA secretary of state's website that simply establishes that he and his wife are registered to vote; and 9) a list of members of the Louisiana Political Hall of Fame which he is a member of but its not a particularly notable achievement. GPL93 (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment pinging @Johnpacklambert: the only account to take part in the last deletion discussion. GPL93 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - I feel like this article has enough material from RS that it could have maybe one or two sentences work of information about the subject, but in its current state...probably can't be salvaged. Then again, I've heard of the user who created this page, he had a reputation for copyright violations, which taints the article more. Jerry (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheriff's are not default notable. The sourcing is not significant enough to meet our notability requirements for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for procedural reasons. While it's anyone's guess on whether or not anything on him counts for notability, this article is subject to indiscriminate deletion per WP:CCI/20110727. ミラ P 16:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly per the rules of WP:CCI. There might be enough sources to re-create the article as a perma stub, although it'll then be a target for Billy's shenanigans. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 16:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither being in the Louisiana Political Museum and Hall of Fame nor being a "National Sheriff of the Year" are instant notability freebies that exempt a person from having to actually have a GNG-worthy volume of reliable source media coverage just because they exist — but the references here are entirely blogs and primary sources, with not even one piece of real media reportage being shown at all let alone the several pieces of real media reportage it would take to get him over GNG. Billy Hathorn was wrong about how notability works for local politicians — a person has not automatically cleared GNG just because you can find a single obituary in their local newspaper. And that goes double if that obituary isn't even an actual journalist-written news article, but merely the paid-inclusion death notice in the classifieds that every person who dies at all automatically gets if their family deigns to place one. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 02:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he was a member of the Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns football team, which could possibly clear WP:NCOLLATH/WP:GNG if anyone searches hard enough for contemporary media coverage of him playing for the team (circa 1960-1964), so I've added him there. ミラ P 02:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the [Louisiana Tech record book] he played two years of varsity, but that's just about it. No awards, records, or all-conference or all-american teams made so highly doubtful. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obituaries and funeral home announcements don't really make good sources for WP:GNG and those are the least biased of anything in the article; without anything else presented I don't see it. If additional sources were presented, I'd certainly reconsider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- additional comment those sources may be good for verifying information and can be useful, but they don't establish notability. That was my intent in my comment, I don't think I was clear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable individual who lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.Celestina007 (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Marquardtika (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The sentence that he won "'Sheriff of the Year' in Louisiana by the Farm Bureau Federation" (emphasis added) is not a real claim of notability. The Farm Bureau awards these annually in almost all 50 states, which means hundreds of such local officials have gotten their award. Arguably, the 4-H award is notable. There's no major crimes sprees or other such crimes he investigated. The reforms he instigated were efforts made by many sheriffs across the United States in the past 50 years. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyone in life gets an obituary in theory; he still fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 03:41, 25 November 2019 (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.