Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Lehman
- 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. postdlf (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Harry Lehman[edit]
- Harry Lehman (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)
Only thing showing he probably exists is a Google Books page that doesn't show the relevant bits. Doesn't seem notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Per WP:POLITICIAN criteria 1: members of regional legislature are automatically notable. He existed, he was elected, so this substub stays. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. As a former state rep, the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. A quick Google newspaper archive search can confirm that the subject held the office.[1] • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hadn't realized politicians were inherently notable. That's pretty weird. But rules are rules. I guess this is settled. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually it isn't that weird — if we had a rule that some members of a state legislature could be considered notable but others couldn't, we'd be locking ourselves into an unresolvable bias war about how to decide which ones were notable enough (e.g. "delete all [Democrats/Republicans/Tea Partiers/third party fringers/etc.] because I hate their ideology".) So while referencing improvements are certainly needed, the only purely objective standards we can use are that either all state legislators are notable, or no state legislators are ever notable — and that latter one definitely isn't going to happen. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that makes sense. Though "Evidence of ever doing anything that had any effect on anyone" wouldn't be such a bad height for the bar. That's an issue for another place. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually it isn't that weird — if we had a rule that some members of a state legislature could be considered notable but others couldn't, we'd be locking ourselves into an unresolvable bias war about how to decide which ones were notable enough (e.g. "delete all [Democrats/Republicans/Tea Partiers/third party fringers/etc.] because I hate their ideology".) So while referencing improvements are certainly needed, the only purely objective standards we can use are that either all state legislators are notable, or no state legislators are ever notable — and that latter one definitely isn't going to happen. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hadn't realized politicians were inherently notable. That's pretty weird. But rules are rules. I guess this is settled. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Referencing and content improvements are definitely needed here, but a person who has served in a state legislature always qualifies under WP:NPOL. Keep and flag for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Member of a state legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- 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.