Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Buckley

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sandstein 10:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Buckley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

    Gavin Buckley (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)

    Buckley is mayor of a city that neither by population nor other measures of importance gives the mayor default notability. The sourcing does not go deep enough to show Buckley to be notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, almost qualifying for WP:SK#3. Annapolis—the capitol of Maryland, and for a time of the U.S.—is undoubtedly a city of at least regional significance, making notability likely per WP:POLOUTCOMES. This is borne out by the existence of hundreds of reliable-source articles of the kind expected for the mayor of a good-sized city: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8], etc. There are also plenty of RS, including in international media, about his role in the response to the recent Capital Gazette shooting: [9][10][11], etc.
    Overall an obvious pass under WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:NPOL, the fact that the article needs expansion notwithstanding. FourViolas (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep : Subject passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – More than enough coverage from “Regional” - “National” and “International” Secondary – Independent and Reliable sources, as shown here [12]. ShoesssS Talk 14:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviewing the small-city mayor when a notorious murder occurs is routine coverage. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete Mayor of Annapolis is a pretty minor position as the state goes, and there's no real claim to notability beyond that. Coverage is routine and local. Mangoe (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Absolutely meets NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a state capital as well as GNG per above sources. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Mayors of state capitals don't presumptively pass WP:NPOL, unless they receive significant press coverage, defined by: A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. This actually serves to disqualify a lot of local coverage in the same way local coverage of a high school basketball player's coverage is disqualified, even if it were to pass WP:GNG, such as the Capital Gazette articles about him winning elections, et cetera, because this is the type of coverage that can be expected for every mayor in the entire country. The question then becomes, is Mr. Buckley special in terms of received coverage? He had a special interest story in Australian press because he's originally from Australia, and also in the Daily Mail: [13]. He was interviewed after a major tragedy in the town he's the mayor of, but the sources I've seen don't make him notable on his own, as it's not significant coverage of him, but rather the tragic event. He's slightly more notable than your average small town mayor since he's an Aussie mayor of an American town, but once you start looking at sources which significantly cover him, I don't think there are enough sources here to satisfy WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 05:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. State capitals do not get a special free exemption from having to reliably source their mayors well enough to clear WP:NPOL #2 — a mayor of Annapolis still has to clear exactly the same standards of notability and sourceability as any other mayor of any other city the size of Annapolis whether it's a state capital or not. But the amount of sourcing shown here, two newspaper articles and his own self-published campaign website, is not good enough to get him over the NPOL bar, and the article includes no genuinely noteworthy substance about his mayoralty beyond the fact of winning the election. This is simply not how you demonstrate that a mayor is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. A mayor's article lives or dies on the depth of substance and sourcing that can be shown to make the article good, not on the size of the city or its status or lack thereof as the capital of anything. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The profiles in the Sydney Morning Herald and PerthNow should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG (if not WP:NPOL) in combination with the articles in the Capital Gazette (even before the shooting). A quick scan of articles in the Gazette show coverage about rezoning proposal in the Colonial Historic District of Annapolis, and the election. --Enos733 (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I see plenty of coverage. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 13:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 23:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - As someone with a deep interest in all aspects of politics (as well as a professional background in the field), I struggle to understand the logic behind the deletion of mayors of American cities. The mayoral offices and their officeholders are essential to the understanding of state and regional politics. That aside, Buckley has coverage in national Australian and American news sources, as well as Maryland and regional sources, like the Capitol Gazette and the Baltimore Sun. His profile has only risen since the tragedy in Annapolis. Agree with the points already made by EDDY, Enos733, and others above. Scanlan (talk)
    As valuable as Wikipedia articles about mayors can be, there isn't any value in giving every mayor an automatic free notability pass just because one or two sources can be shown to verify that they exist — in the United States alone, there are literally tens or even hundreds of thousands of places with mayors, with probably a few dozen mayors on average over the course of each place's history. And then multiply that by Canada, Australia, Germany, France, and every other country on earth where places also have mayors. Then consider that oftentimes nobody actually bothers to write or source anything more about the mayor than "he exists, he used to own a hardware store, he has three kids, the end", which is not a useful or informative article that's actually helping anybody understand anything important about local politics. And then consider that not every mayor of everywhere is even directly elected by the voters — in many places, "mayor" is a purely ceremonial title which rotates among the city councillors so that everybody gets to hold the title for a year and none of them actually has any executive power to control or influence the political agenda beyond merely chairing the council meeting. There is, in a nutshell, a lot of logic behind why mayors can't all be automatically presumed notable just because they exist — to be considered notable, a mayor needs to have a really well-sourced and substantive article which says a lot more than just "he exists". Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to this: almost all US state capitals are smaller cities or even what might pass for large towns in more populous areas, and Annapolis is no exception. Its main industries are tourism and bedrooms. Really, in Maryland the only city where the mayor's office is intrinsically important is Baltimore; there is the occasional mayor who does something notorious elsewhere, but this fellow is not that person, and the two stories from Australia are patent human interest pieces. In ten years, even Annapolitans are going to give you a blank look when you asked them what Gavin Buckley did; most of them aren't even going to be able to tell you he was mayor. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The goal is always to write a substantive article about a subject, more than "they exist." To me, that means something about a mayor's education and career before politics, some information about their election(s) and some discussion about their accomplishments or controversies in office (beyond ribbon cuttings and other routine events). I believe there is some presumption within WP:NPOL that Wikipedia should be a source of information about elected officials, whether in a list form (i.e. list of mayors) or as full articles because there is global encyclopedic value in knowing who represents us. Our line of who is notable for a stand-alone article is based (or should be based) on how complete an article can be written and how independent the sources are from the subject. There is a tendency to discount local sources because some papers merely republish press releases, or because many local sources cover routine events ("the mayor said this at last night's council meeting), and without looking at the individual articles, hit counts are deceiving for a local elected official. (Also, the less high-profile an individual is, there is a tendency for less attention to be paid to the upkeep and maintenance of the article) So, I say, the WP:10YT test is not applicable to any elected official. --Enos733 (talk) 16:56, 1 August 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gavin_Buckley&oldid=853850953"