Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corky Boozé

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corky Boozé

[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)

Fails WP:NPOL John from Idegon (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has had some regional coverage over the years, but not enough to establish notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local politician. Richmond is not even a the second most important city in its metro area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most local government officials are not notable, and the article does not make a case that its subject is an exception. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:NPOL. He's a city councilman and has campaigned on some local issues, as a councilman would be expected to do, and has received local press coverage, also to be expected. That's not enough on its own and I can't find any sources which suggest anything which elevates him above thousands of other local politicians. Neiltonks (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject had numerous articles written about him that cover him significantly or in depth in reliable sources that are major publications. Wikipedia is not paper and local sources do count. I remind the closing admin that this is not a vote and to see the references for himself.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
also several rs covering the topic I depth were deleted recently including a long standing city council circus relating to councilwoman beckeks lesbianismNdołkah☆ (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the above user chooses to ignore WP:NPOL doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Repeating the same felicitous arguments over and over do not make them valid. WP:BLUDGEON applies. John from Idegon (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously you choose to ignore that NPOL states "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" and Corky Boozé has been the main subject of many articles in the East Bay Express and San Francisco Chronicle, here is the signifacnt coverage, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], those are the factsNdołkah☆ (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost all of the coverage is local, and most of it is routine. - MrX 🖋 22:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant that it's local, local sources are still reliable sources, and the coverage is in depth, he is named in the articles themselves. He was also the first black winner of the Winternationals.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely relevant and policy based. It's covered by WP:NOTNEWS #2; WP:POLITICIAN; WP:SIGCOV; and WP:SOAPBOX #3: "Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person."[6]. - Mr X 🖋 22:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that's also irrelevant here as this article isn't an attack on anyonethe only person that ever got attacked was jovanka by corky but that's not even in the article!Ndołkah☆ (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia has a longstanding consensus that a handful of local coverage in the local media is not, in and of itself, enough to hand a city councillor a WP:GNG pass. Wikipedia has a longstanding consensus that city councillors are not all inherently notable enough for inclusion here — the notability test that a city councillor has to pass, to warrant a Wikipedia article, has always been that they're significantly more notable than the norm for that level of political office, by virtue of being able to show things such as nationalized prominence and/or a really deep and detailed and very highly sourced dive into their political importance, either way going well beyond just what every city councillor on earth could always show. If all you had to do to exempt a city councillor from having to clear that bar was show a small handful of purely local coverage in their own city's local media, then every city councillor in every city on earth would always get that exemption and the actual inclusion bar would never apply to anybody at all anymore. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a perennial candidate, which have tended to keep. This guy ran 10 times. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't really pass WP:GNG/WP:NOTNEWS, and definitively fails WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 01:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does he not pass the GNG, are the SF Chronicle and East Bay Times not reliable sources? Are there not numerous articles cited about that cover the subject in depth?Ndołkah☆ (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to relist for more in depth concensus, as many are ignoring the sources.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The project has a longstanding consensus that local coverage for city councillors, especially city councillors for small municipalities, need to demonstrate a level of coverage beyond what any city councillor would normally receive. There are at most two good articles here, and one of them, the East Bay article, is pretty much an interview with the man himself as opposed to in depth discussion of his political career. I understand you want this kept, but in terms of notability, I think this this is a long ways off from being kept. SportingFlyer T·C 08:56, 8 January 2020 (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.