Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Parsons

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. Consensus is that this individual is not quite notable enough for an article yet, although that could change in the future (and the article can always be restored). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Parsons[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)

Non-notable local politician. County commissioner is not the sort of position that affords automatic notability under WP:NPOL, so we're left with the GNG, which Parsons fails: the only reliable sources in the article are either interviews or trivial mentions, and a WP:BEFORE search finds only more of the same. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While a County Commissioner would normally not be a notable enough position under WP:NPOL I believe given the recent COVID-19 pandemic and George Floyd protests and the specific role he has played as Chairman of the board in overseeing the crisis has generated significant media coverage beyond trivial mentions and beyond his own county gaining multiple headlines.(1, 2, 3, 4) He was also deemed prominent enough to testify before the US Senate along with a slate of local officials who mostly do have Wikipedia pages (5) and before the pandemic had a biographical article (non-interview) in the local newspaper. His impact has been far greater than that of a normal County Commissioner as evidenced by his increased media coverage over the other commissioners on the board, his personal involvement in pushing back against federal funds, and direct local protests planned against him and not the commissioners as a whole developing a public persona more akin to a mayor or representative than a county commissioner. Jazatz2 (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that County Commissioners are in general not notable, I believe there can be exceptions. He is the chairman of the board for one of the largest counties in the state. Per above, there is significant enough coverage for Parsons to meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly agree that some county commissioners can be notable, but I'm not seeing why Parsons is such an exception. The sources provided are little more than occasional quotes in the local news: statements like "County Commissioner Josh Parsons said he was “very pleased” with Wednesday’s announcement" are simply not significant coverage. Even the "biographical article" touted above is just an interview in which Parsons himself opines on how he "put out a plan with common sense things to do", "hasn't shied from tackling complex problems", and "ran a recent half marathon in an hour and 55 minutes". That is not independent of the subject: it's for all intents and purposes authored by the subject. Unless there's some real in-depth secondary coverage of Parsons himself (and not just the occasional "Parsons says"), he still fails the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There may be a significant amount of coverage for a recent event but no long lasting effect. ^Ramaswar _(discuss) 19:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 17:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no reason to make an exception to the general rule here. There's nothing encyclopedic to say. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . I agree with DGG. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The comments since the last relist are rather weak and can't support a "delete" consensus. More input is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ritchie333 Which part of the 3 votes is rather weak? MaskedSinger (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the first, see WP:VAGUEWAVE, for the other two, see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable politician. Alex-h (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, albeit weakly. Per WP:N, A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, OR the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG), provided that it is not excluded under WP:NOT. I don't see anybody making WP:NOT arguments, and I don't see any strong ones that would allow for deletion. But, I see convincing arguments that the individual fails WP:BASIC, which is the SNG for people that's more or less a GNG equivalent. The individual has been the subject of in-depth coverage from multiple stories, though all of the non-trivial mentions I could find are from the same publication, Lancaster Online (bylined biography, 1, 2). If others were able to find in-depth coverage from any other RS independent from him, then I might consider changing my !vote. But, for now, the sources don't cut it; this local TV source is way too short and it's not super in-depth, this PennLive source plainly isn't about the commissioner, and the remainder of the Lancaster Online sources aren't WP:INDEPENDENT from each other. Merely testifying in front of congress isn't enough for notability, nor is being the subject of a political protest that apparently(?) didn't draw coverage from reliable sources (I don't consider the the protest website itself an RS for the purpose of notability). Again, it's possible that another source exists in this context, but absent my ability to find it, I lean towards deletion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I definitely see your reasoning and do admit the vast majority of sources are trivial mentions. I would argue that the PennLive source revolves around comparing other counties in PA to Parson's role as commissioner and mentions him by name throughout the article. There was recently an article in the Capital-Star based in Harrisburg which discussed the protest. Although, admittedly it was not very well attended- still in attracted a response from a state-wide newspaper. You are certainly right though, most of the sources are from LNP (Lancaster Online) which can certainly be a limitation in proving notability, nonetheless other sources do exist but tend to be trivial and the articles in LNP are not themselves a part of a serial but the course of the stories is over several years during his tenure (eg. bio piece, response to covid, response to George Floyd) and not simply one single event which is the underlying reason (as it seems to me) for the WP:INDEPENDENT policy between sources. Jazatz2 (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2021 (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.