Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Sanders (politician)

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. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sanders (politician)

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN Ironholds (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there AfD discussions for the previous attempts? I can't seem to find them. PDCook (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject fails WP:Politician. A Google search reveals some mention of him here and there, but I'm not finding any in-depth coverage in reliable sources that would satisfy WP:BIO. If significant source were presented in the previous AfD discussions I'd be interested in seeing them and I could reconsider. PDCook (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication he meets either the GNG or POLITICIAN. Yeah, his brother does, but Notability is not inherited. --Saalstin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the third time someone tried to delete this article. For information, the last two attempts failed: I forgot whether it was ‘consensus to keep’ or ‘no consensus to delete’. My personal opinion is to keep. – Kaihsu (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC) note: Kaihsu is the creator of this article Ironholds (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Kaihsu was referring to Jacob Sanders, which was deleted on its 2nd and 3rd nominations. This article seems to be non-notable member of a local government and nothing indicates that his relationship with Bernie Sanders is notable either. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Member of local council doesn't pass muster for notability. Not enough reliable third party sources to verify his bio information (I personally don't consider a podcast reliable by any means). Nefariousski (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that have to depend on the podcast, though? I presume the White House's podcasts (open in iTunes) would be as reliable as any press release or interview. I'm not familiar with this particular podcast, but rejecting all podcasts is just a little extreme. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the podcast is what lends it reliability. I'm sorry for my lack of clarity. Surely a podcast from an obviously reliable source would be acceptable but I still would hold a podcast to a higher level of scrutiny than similar content from the same source in a circulated periodical or article due to higher scrutiny and standards for inclusion in print than on self generated media. Nefariousski (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A mere member of a local council. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and insufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Intersting that he's Bernie Sanders' brother. Learn something every day. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have dug out a few independent references from a local newspaper and there seem to be a few other articles in their archives dating back to 2006. I will see if I can pull up any other source material. Road Wizard (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources verify that he is a county-level politician, but they do not demonstrate any notability. PDCook (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a test of the number of sources that cover a topic and to a lesser extent the quality of those sources. If you are under the impression that a guideline saying "we don't like county-level politicians because they are unimportant" beats general source material then you are sadly mistaken. At the moment he is a borderline case on notability; he is important enough to receive several mentions in the local media, but the sources so far do not go into much depth about him. While it is preferred to have 1 source with some depth, it is often accepted that having multiple sources of less depth can support the same material, assuming that all facts are verified and the sources are reliable. The only other significant concern is that several of the local media sources appear to be from a single publisher, which leaves us open to adopting the publisher's bias and presenting a non-neutral view of the subject.

As I said, I will be trying to identify further source material for the article. Road Wizard (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Correct, articles that are subject of a number of articles from reliable sources will over-ride the requirements for notability by those guidelines. They are, after all, guidelines. However, the articles that you have cited are not about Larry Sanders. They simply mention him - or are really about his brother! - so do not count as sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. I will search for references on Factiva it tomorrow, but it's probably that he does not have the requisite coverage himself. Keep until tomorrow, and then provisionally delete. Bastin 16:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything of particular note. So vote delete. Bastin 09:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete as a fail of WP:POLITICIAN but consider preserving the reference material at Bernie Sanders#Personal life if deleted. References seem to be in demand these days ;-) Ray^Talk 22:53, 3 February 2010 (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.