Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Riordan (police officer)

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. The first "keep" is discounted because it argues that being chief of a big police department is inherently notable, which is at odds with our guidelines. The second, weak "keep" argues basically that "there must be sources somewhere". But until we actually can cite these sources, there is no basis for an article, per WP:V and WP:GNG. Sandstein 06:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Riordan (police officer)

[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)

dePRODded (courtesy @Necrothesp:) as he was chief, but per this, it may have been less than a year. I cannot find any other coverage to establish notability or any discussion of his career as chief. Pre-internet is of course an issue, but if he had a lasting impact, I imagine there would be something. Star Mississippi 14:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books finds plenty of mentions in reliable sources, for example here, but I haven't checked them out to see if any have significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- From those where I could access previews, it was captions and just references in/to his role, more as Deputy than Chief due to tenure I presume. Star Mississippi 23:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it is common sense that the chief of a police department as significant as the SFPD should be deemed to be notable, even if he was only chief for a short time. Note that before that he was also deputy chief for seven years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Per WP:POLITICIAN, you have to have held a major non-local office or have significant press coverage to qualify for notability. While I am wary of WP:MEMORIAL, I think the Google Books results page is a good start to finding more sources. But even a passing mention in this timeline from the San Francisco Historical Society indicates that there is probably potential more coverage that isn't on the internet, which would qualify for the latter of WP:POLITICIAN. — BriefEdits (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no significant coverage and many of the sources are presumed and do not constitute evidence of notability. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 21:05, 20 June 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.