Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Thomas Barranger

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. Both "keep" opinions do not actually cite the sources they assert exist. Sandstein 09:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J. Thomas Barranger[edit]

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

County executive, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Rusf10 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does it pass GNG? outside of an obituary, there's a clear lack of reliable sources here.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Here" as in the WP article? gidonb (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there, here, or anywhere else.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my research, I found sufficient reliable sources for keeping under the WP:GNG. Given the time, I'll try to add some to the article. gidonb (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we'll see.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't put in much yet. There is so much more. In any case, what counts are the sources "out there", not "in here". gidonb (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether you want to put the work in to add the sources to the article, now would be a great time to share them with everyone (even by just posting links here). It's easy to claim "there are sources" without actually providing them.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thorough research is never easy. Nominating and skipping the WP:GNG is easy! Serially dropping delete opinions, such as one participant below, including one of the most decorated German actresses -- that's easy! At WP we have a class of serial nominators who nominate articles and support nominations without sufficient references in the texts, instead of tagging {{cn}}, {{references}}, and {{refimprove}}. They claim to have looked at other sources but the amount and depth that is out there often makes one wonder.[1] The importance of the people or organizations at hand often makes one wonder.[2] I do not think it is a fair expectation from those who disagree with deletions to reference any article at hand, whether at AFDs or elsewhere. It takes a lot of time to do this right.[3] If all can check and provide their opinions then all can do this. gidonb (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb:Until you actually produce sources, I am going to continue to assume that they do not exist. Accusing me and others of not doing searches is both uncivil and a waste of time. Somehow you have the time to dig through old AfDs to critize but linking to sources is too much work for you. I did a search and found basically nothing, so did everyone else so far. So I'll ask again, if you found sources, may we please see them? Is that too much to ask? The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide the sources, not on us to prove that they do not exist.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I answered all that above. gidonb (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't, I'm still waiting to see the sources. You're either withholding the sources which is really pointless and childish OR they don't exist. Either way, telling us sources exist, but refusing to provide them is a bad faith act.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. Newspapers.com has a dozen articles on him starting in 1978 through the 1980s as well as multiple obits from various outlets. --RAN (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the county executive has died in 2011, there are no WP:BLP concerns here. Wikipedia has an unfortunate tendency towards recentism, so we should cherish our articles on historic politicians. gidonb (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as typical local coverage of a local politician. Mangoe (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, I do not understand the keep votes above. The best sources I can find on him were articles involving his year's probation for violating elections laws [4] [5], information which isn't currently in the article. There was an article which mentioned him from Idaho, but it was only a short quote showing how the Washington metro area was rationing gasoline. Right now we have four sources, two from the same website; one is his obituary, another is primary, the other two a campaign database website. While there was significant coverage for his crime, there's nowhere near enough here to get him past WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 08:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete What is needed is broad coverage that goes above and beyond what would be found about any politician. I can find this or more coverage of the first directly elected figure head mayor we had in my city of 135,000 people. A few articles here and there on a local politician in a newspaper that covers the area he lives in is not a show of notability, it is what is expected. However having long followed these debates on local politicians even that is often not what is brought up. In the case of Richard Notte the keep faction was trying to use articles about the redevelopment of a large automotive assembly plant that named dropped Notte as one of the members of the city council involved in tax incentive plans to create this outcome, without telling us anything more about Notte that he held the title of mayor, that was not the level of indepth coverage neeeded to pass GNG. For too long those who say "the person passes GNG", have assumed that having an article published in a newspaper with your name mentioned in it constituted a pass of GNG. Well it does not, and so unless we can see the actual claimed substantive articles used and linked to in the Wikipedia article, we should go ahead and delete over these boys who cried wolf, I mean GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2018 (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.