Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Brown (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. Despite the article creator feeling otherwise, there is clear consensus that WP:NPOL and WP:GNG are not met. Can be revisited after the election, though there's some disagreement about whether county judge meets NPOL. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Brown (politician)[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)

Fails WP:NPOL as a candidate for county judge and fails WP:GNG as the subject is not notable outside of his current campaign. References include Facebook and FamilySearch results. GPL93 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He has been reported by several other places. www.newspapers.com/search/#query=Andy+Brown&offset=1&s_place=Austin%2C+Texas Cladeal832 (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His candidacy is not the sole reason for this article and Facebook Live and California Birth Index are used as sources nor are they the sole sources for this article either. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:NPOL, and the only sources are either not reliable or consist of routine coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But neither of Kinu's points are true. The sources are reliable and accurate. He has been covered multiple times by local news. It's makes no sense to delete this just because it's not yet November. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Kinu is very much correct. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, unless candidates are considered non-notable unless they have received an inordinate amount of national news coverage (ie: Christine O'Donnell) and technically speaking county-level officials are not guaranteed notability under WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. The standard was not solely national coverage, but for a politician is also local coverage and he has been written up multiple times outside of this specific campaign. He could be consider notable for his role in multiple community leadership roles outside of this campaign, which nobody expects him to lose. Not typing that as an endorsement, but it just seems silly to delete the article and then bring it back in November since the Travis County has elected a non-Democrat as Country Judge since... ever. Cladeal832 (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:NPOL as a candidate for a county judge. The position the subject is running for is likely not a position that would make the individual notable even if they are elected. --Enos733 (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just having a smattering of local coverage in one's own local media is not, in and of itself, a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass the actual notability standards for the person's actual field of employment — if that were how it worked, we would always have to keep an article about every single candidate for any elected office, municipal councillors, smalltown mayors, local restaurateurs, presidents of elementary school parent-teacher associations and high school student councils, every kid who ever tried out for his high school basketball team despite having missing fingers, every band that ever won a high school battle of the bands competition, and my mother's neighbour who got into the papers a few years back for finding a pig in her front yard. Rather, at this level of significance, the notability test he would have to pass is having nationalizing coverage indicating that he's much more notable than the norm for this — and even if he wins the election in the end, the county judge level still isn't an instant free pass over WP:NPOL that would guarantee him an article in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Again these are straw men arguments since the one and only reason there is this article isn't that he's a candidate for public office. These are silly arguments. Again the policy of deleting articles aren't the most vote, but trying to create. When there are articles on each and every candidate for any and all elected office, then debate them those, this is specially about on single article. When there is an article about your mother's neighbor and a pig, then debate that article. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You keep saying things like "the one and only reason there is this article isn't that he's a candidate for public office," but you have yet to provide support for that claim. Please indicate which sources, if any, are not mere routine coverage about his candidacy, but instead can be used to show how WP:GNG or any specific notability criterion (e.g., WP:NPOL) is met, because I'm not finding any. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you read the article. Only one source is about his candidacy for County Judge. Again how am I suppose to response to your characterizations that you assert. Why say every and all articles and sources are just routine without anything to back it up beyond your assumptions that it must be. The standard is not if you personally find a person notable or not. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of the references, as they are numbered now, #2 is "Andy Brown wins Democratic nomination for Travis County judge." #3 is titled "Brown Makes It Official: Former Dem County Chair Announces Run for Judge." #4 is paywalled, but it looks like a list of people that are running for some sort of election. #6 is a duplicate of #2. So, yes, every potentially reliable source (#1 and #5 clearly do not fall into that category) that you have provided in the article (as you have provided no sources here, again, despite your claims), is by definition routine coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, you are changing the standard. It is just coverage of this current campaign is just one and pointed out several articles from newspaper archives that are unrelated to running for an office in a previous post. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        You have not provided any additional references in this discussion. The only link you've provided is a vague paywalled search that claims "89,891 Matches for Andy Brown in Austin, Texas." Right. I do not know if you are being intentionally disingenuous, but at this point, until you actually provide something worth discussing, I see no reason to change my !vote or to engage in this discussion further. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unelected county judge. Even if he were elected, county judge is not the level of position that makes one default notable. This is basically the county executive, and we have decided that no one is default notable for this level of position. The current article is basically just a campaign brochure in our space which is not the function of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have said currently fails WP:POLITICIAN and even if he succeeds still fails it as a county judge is not notable. Would need to have something else happen to make them notable, as currently they're just a failed political candidate who is in an election, like thousands of other non-notables worldwide. Canterbury Tail talk 19:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- He seems notable enough to somehow get half a dozen people to oddly weigh in on this one small article. Plenty of less notable people in politics have articles with way less information. I have several reliable sources for this article. I personally don't find him notable seems particularly compelling. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guidelineCladeal832 (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Plenty of people read through the AfD lists, nothing unusual about that. And if you don't find him notable, as you just mentioned above, and that's compelling, then why are you arguing he's notable? Canterbury Tail talk 01:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is nothing odd about established editors who actively participate in deletion discussions doing so here. See WP:AGF and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- County Judges in Texas are more equivalent to mayors and quoting Wikipedia, Mayors: Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville" The article shows than that and Travis County has a population of one million people so it's not an small town. It's silly to delete this article before November.Cladeal832 (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Says who? Who says, in reliable sources, that a judge in Texas is equivalent to a mayor of a major city? If you have reliable sources and wish to overturn accepted guidelines, then I suggest you take it to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people) and make your case there. However until that is changed people will continue to make their comments and recommendations based on Wikipedia guidelines as they are now, not as you would like it to be. Canterbury Tail talk 01:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I mean I agree that this should be deleted as it's probably WP:TOOSOON, but according to the Dallas Morning News, “County judge” is the title given to the county’s chief administrator — the top executive. According to the Houston Chronicle, As defined by the Texas Constitution, the leading official in all 254 counties is the "county judge," although it's a term that seems antiquated in urbanized areas where the office functions similarly to that of a city's mayor. According to local Texas TV news station KHOU, Brandon Rottinghaus, a University of Houston political science professor, described a county judge’s role as “the chief executive officer of the county.” ... Instead of running a courtroom, he or she presides over and votes in the county commissioners court. Rottinghaus compared the county judge to a president and the four commissioners to legislators. See also: County judge#Texas. On the other hand, you're right that the position isn't inherently notable. County judges in Texas and mayors need to have "received significant press coverage" to be notable. That's why the Lina Hidalgo, Clay Jenkins, and Ed Emmett articles exist. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Would need significant press coverage to be notable. And that will happen if/when he is elected. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of articles that are just about candidates solely sourced to campaign coverage and haven't gotten anywhere near the flack this article has gotten. Dan Seals (politician). Again, just stating I don't think he's significant enough isn't a reason to delete this article so matter how many users make the same point. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if he isn't notable enough to meet our guidelines that's exactly the reason to delete it. Canterbury Tail talk 00:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some editors would do well read WP:BLUD. I used to do this, and that essay helped me a lot on dealing with disagreements on Wikipedia. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 07:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only reliable coverage is WP:MILL coverage of a candidacy for an office which doesn't meet WP:NPOL. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:46, 23 August 2020 (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.