Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary DeWolf

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. Sandstein 20:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary DeWolf

[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 a politician notable only as head of a local school board. As always, school board is not a level of office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia per se -- the basis for including a school board member or president in Wikipedia is not "he exists", but "he has a substantive reason to be deemed much, much more special than most other school board members". But this is not particularly demonstrating that -- while it has a lot of footnotes, it's actually very strongly reference bombed to blogs and primary sources (his own LinkedIn, raw tables of election results) that are not support for notability at all, and the portion of the citation pool which is actually media coverage is simply run of the mill local coverage no different than every other school board member everywhere else can always also show, which is not enough to make him more special than the norm for a not inherently notable level of office.
And "first member of [insert underrepresented minority group here] to do this not otherwise notable thing in one specific city" is not a notability freebie either -- if this had made him the first LGBTQ person ever to hold political office in the entire country, then he'd likely have grounds for inclusion on that basis, but not if he's merely the first LGBTQ person to serve on one specific local political body, in a city that had already elected other LGBTQ people to other more notable offices before him anyway.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable at all, and there's no strong reason being shown here to treat him as more special than most other holders of a not inherently notable office. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm not in favour of arguments which link notability to *national* status, it's a grossly misrepresentative measure: purely quantitatively, a Los Angeles Unified School District board member, for example, is representative of more people than the national parliaments of more than 50 countries. There are around 20 countries and territories with smaller populations than the number of students in the Seattle public school system. That said, this article reeks of PROMO and the sourcing is questionable. Would consider changing my !vote if a different sourcing analysis could be reasonably presented, but for the moment, I can't see it. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as school board members are generally not notable, even for large cities. The article uses quite a few poor sources, as mentioned above, and does not make a strong case for special notability. He has 100 hits from the city's main newspaper (The Seattle Times), but most are passing mentions in coverage of school affairs. Sounder Bruce 07:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. He seems to meet the notability requirement and seems to stand out from my perspective as a noteworthy individual. Although I am concerned about the connection with the subject that's noted in the warning box at the top of the article.--Greysonsarch (talk) 15:06, 30 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.