Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrell L. Clarke (politician) (2nd nomination)

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 Keep. Synergy 07:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell L. Clarke (politician)[edit]

Ministub with poor referenced on a non notable local politician. No room to grow. Hasn't done anything special. besides kick the boyscouts out of their 80-year leased home, but that story is already on wikinews. ^MY♥_INchile 19:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article could use expansion and better sources, he seems to meet #2 of Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians, which says "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Gnews search comes up with 655 hits, so notability is very likely.

well then Prove it^MY♥_INchile 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep on the grounds that this passed a previous AFD only 2 months ago, which resulted in the nominator withdrawing due to compelling information provided in the discussion. I don't see how that would change in 2 months. Articles must not be renominated repeatedly in such a short period of time until a desired outcome occurs. 23skidoo (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That outcome never became reality, the nomination rule has to do when there has been no consensus delete or keep, not withdrawals.^MY♥_INchile 00:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish keep - a lot of the news coverage is fairly trivial, but some of it is more in-depth, and the sheer quantity makes his claim to notability pretty reasonable. I don't think being a member of a city council is automatic grounds for notability, but in this case the subject has received enough attention to deserve an article. Terraxos (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A LexisNexis search of Pennsylvania News Sources turns up a whopping 1003 results, although his article definitely needs to be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminx (talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 July 2008 (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.