Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Pepper (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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Pepper[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLOUTCOMES: local political party chairs, municipal politicians, and failed candidates for higher officer are not inherently notable. (In the previous AfD of nine years ago, the arguments advanced for Keep were that Pepper had inherent notability due to losing a large election or holding a municipal office; one argument was that mayors of major cities are notable under POLOUTCOMES, therefore, councilors must also be notable. Since that AfD, this has since been clarified as not the case.)

Per WP:NOTINHERITED, the fact he is the son of the CEO of Procter & Gamble does not make him notable.

In the absence of political notability, would need to pass the WP:GNG, however, all sources in article are routine coverage related to his two failed campaigns for Auditor, and AG. A BEFORE search on Google News finds him appearing in a handful of places but only in the form of one-line reaction quotes. Nothing on JSTOR, newspapers.com, or Google Books. Chetsford (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Members of the state legislature have articles no matter how inconsequential they are. Leaders of state parties like this person and his Republican counterpart, Jane Timken, are at least as notable as those people. Roseohioresident (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Timken is also a good candidate for AFD. "are at least as notable as those people" Is this a policy based argument drawing from WP:NPOL or WP:POLOUTCOMES, or a personal opinion? This seems to be a variation of the argument extended in the original AFD that, because mayors qualify under POLOUTCOMES, councilors should; "because legislators qualify under POLOUTCOMES, party chairs should". While this might be a valid argument to make in a proposal to amend the notability guidelines, an individual AfD is for purposes of determining if an article qualifies under the guidelines as they currently exist - not the guidelines we wish existed. Chetsford (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is personal opinion. Policy is silly on wikipedia a lot of the time. This article gets five to ten page views most days. Hit the random article button, and most articles have fewer. Select a random state legislator and you'll get fewer. I think wikipedia should give the reader what she is looking for, not some arbitrary definition of notability. Roseohioresident (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course it is personal opinion. Policy is silly on wikipedia a lot of the time." Okay. We may just have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass our notability guidelines. Legislature members create actual laws, party leaders have no actual power.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We keep articles about legislators because they actually pass laws. State political party chairs can get articles if they can be properly referenced to enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, but are not handed an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist — but the amount of coverage being shown here is not enough to get him over GNG, because two of the four sources are routine coverage of his campaigns for races he didn't win, a third is routine coverage of his campaign for a county-level office that he did win but doesn't constitute an automatic NPOL pass in and of itself, and the fourth is covering him only in the context of writing a book that isn't notable enough to get him over WP:AUTHOR. This would be keepable if somebody could show some evidence of a GNG-passing volume of coverage for his work in the role of party chair itself — but merely being able to show that a few sources exist about otherwise non-notable aspects of his prior activity, while showing no sourcing that's actually covering him in the context of the notability claim itself, is not how you make a party chair notable enough. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May meet WP:AUTHOR, in addition to being a councilmember of a regional city, commissioner of a large county, and chair of a state-level political party. (See this review in Politico Magazine and Cincinnati.com of his book The People’s House.) (The subject's personal site shows a longer list of RS reviews). While any one of his activities may not meet WP:GNG by itself, it is hard to see that in total, the subject would fail the notability guidelines. --Enos733 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he passes my standards for lawyers. He was a city council member of a large city, county commissioner, ran for mayor and state AG, and has been state chairman of a major party in a crucial swing state. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - he passes your personal notability standards? Chetsford (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG when one considers status as head of a state party organization with status as a published-and-reviewed novelist. Sufficient coverage to support encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the local political offices he was elected to in the Cincinnati area, plus the coverage of his book (in outlets such as the Wall Street Journal) is enough non-trivial coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as noted above, has held offices that would substantiate him as notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:32, 27 February 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.