Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Carson

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. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Carson[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)

WP:BLP of an officeholder at the county level of government, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, people at this level of government are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- local officeholders have to pass a much higher burden of notability than just being technically verifiable, such as by writing and properly sourcing some genuine substance about their political significance to demonstrate why they should be seen as significantly more notable than the norm for this level of office. But this is effectively written like a résumé, says nothing about him that would credibly support treating him like a special case of greater notability than most other county councillors, and isn't properly referenced: three of the five footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, one is a news article that tangentially verifies a stray fact without actually mentioning Keith Carson at all in conjunction with it, and the fifth is a dead link that can't even be recovered via the Wayback Machine to determine whether it did or didn't say anything noteworthy about Keith Carson either. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to contain much more substance, and much better sourcing, than this. (Note also that the existence of this article was recently raised in another current AFD discussion as a WP:WAX argument for why a similarly bad article about one of his colleagues had to be kept.) Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator. Fails WP:NPOL and I could find no significant coverage in independent sources that showed why this person would be an exception. - 20:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 00:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting the inclusion criteria for politiicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 4 March 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.