Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Baxter Jr.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. At least a couple of the !votes to delete are not based in policy; while I agree we're at the borderline of NPOL here, a substantive argument has been put forward that the subject meets GNG, and has not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James H. Baxter Jr.[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

James H. Baxter Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and have to demonstrate that they were already notable enough for Wikipedia articles for other reasons besides the candidacy alone -- but nothing else here is a notability claim at all, and the referencing consists of one primary source that isn't support for notability at all and one obituary in his own local media.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one piece about him in his own hometown community hyperlocal for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Goldsztajn is correct, but that is not an elected office. It's the bureaucratic head of a state agency, not the same as a state-wide office. So, this person doesn't meet WP:NPOL. QuintinK (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@QuintinK WP:NPOL indicates those who have "held" office, it does not exclude appointees. The Secretary of Agriculture in Delaware is a cabinet level post. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn I believe you're mistaken. The term "statewide office" typically refers only to elected offices. From a legal glossary of Texas election law terms: "Statewide Office: An office of the federal or state government that is voted on statewide." So, an unelected state Secretary of Agriculture does not qualify for notability under WP:NPOL. They would need to qualify under WP:GNG. If they did, the bureaucratic head of every state agency in every state would as well - possibly even the members of minor state boards and commissions. I hope that makes sense. Sincerely, QuintinK (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @QuintinK - FWIW, the US is not the only federal system nor are we governed by Texas law. We're governed by *international* community consensus. We accept that appointed positions satisfy NPOL. Furthermore, we have precedent for accepting that appointed US state level cabinet positions satisty NPOL: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NB: WP:POLOUTCOMES: "Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn Thank you for sharing the WP:POLOUTCOMES precedent. I was unaware of it. I was not suggesting by any means that we were bound by Texas law. I was providing evidence of what I understand to be the commonly-held, encyclopedic definition of "statewide office" in American English. Here is similar definition from Nevada. It's important to note the difference here between a federal system and a Westminster system. In a Westminster system, provincial/state cabinet officials would all automatically have WP:NPOL by being members of a sub-federal legislature. In the US, a governor's cabinet are mainly civil servants, with some political appointees.
I am rather concerned about scope creep from the precedent, though. For example, the cabinet of Maryland has 20 current members that would meet WP:NPOL under this interpretation. Do all of those people really merit Wikipedia biographies? Along with all their predecessors over the centuries? It seems to me like they should have to meet the WP:GNG. QuintinK (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Regardless of the position of state cabinet officials with relation to NPOL, WP:POLOUTCOMES establishes that "Civil servants who assume a political office on an interim or caretaker basis are not considered notable just for having briefly held that office, even if holders of the office are normally considered notable". As a briefly serving acting secretary with a newspapers.com search returning few sources that provide WP:SIGCOV, I'm leaning towards the subject not being notable. Curbon7 (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That clause doesn't apply. He wasn't a civil servant, he was a Republican politican - his appointment was neither interim nor caretaker. He was appointed to serve in the role, the Delware senate rejected the Governor's appointment. It's a completely different circumstance. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realize from the previous discussion that his nomination to be Delaware Secretary of Agriculture had failed. In that case, he's not an appointed cabinet figure, but rather a failed nominee, and the earlier discussion about unelected state cabinet members is moot. He clearly fails WP:NPOL. Some of the article content could be merged with 1978 United States Senate election in Delaware, as recommended in WP:POLOUTCOMES for failed federal candidates. QuintinK (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck !vote due to the improvement, but am not confident on the article enough to !vote keep. Curbon7 (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Between 1975 and 1981 there's substantial SIGCOV availability of sourcing for Baxter, all easily found with simple searching at newspapers.com, including multiple front page news reports. Passes BASIC/GNG. Notwithstanding WP:NEXIST, I've nevertheless added these and expanded the article. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does seem to pass GNG, and possibly NPOL as well (although that seems less certain). Nice expansion work by Goldsztajn. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Thanks to Goldsztajn's new sources, the article now passes GNG. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article expanded in length since the nomination, but the same notability issues mentioned in this AfD still remain such as a failed nomination vote for Delaware Secretary of Agriculture and a failed Senate campaign. There aren't new points for notability especially for WP:NPOL despite the additions. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saucysalsa30: NPOL does not need to be met; it is only an alternative to GNG. In what way does he not meet GNG? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG is the lowest, vaguest possible bar, and its vagueness is why so many other notability guidelines exist such as WP:NBIO and WP:NPOL in this case. Still, in the context of GNG, of the 19 sources, not including the duplicate, the two short obituraries which are practically identical, are only 2 (rather, 1) of the few sources that are secondary, assuming reliable, sources fully independent of the subject. The AAD website does nothing for notability. The press release from the Delaware Department of Agriculture is a government press release and affiliated with the subject considering he worked there. The WaPo article barely mentions Baxter except to say Dole told people to donate to Baxter. The rest of the sources are a couple small local newspapers, the area in which the subject was active, most of which have statements made by Baxter to the paper (not entirely secondary sourcing) and almost all are about his failed political campaigning, rivalry with Venema, or about Venema, which is exactly what's been discussed as problematic here. WP:CITEKILL stitching together news blurbs from a small local newspaper about each of the same precise two events to demonstrate nothing more than what was already discussed in this AfD doesn't help much with notability. A local newspaper's blurbs about or including one of their local politicians whose claim to notability was an acting position for a few months hardly meets notability criteria. The last source barely mentions a quote from Baxter. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    RE: "GNG is the lowest, vaguest possible bar, and its vagueness is why so many other notability guidelines exist". Huh?? SNGs like NBIO pre-date GNG. If anything, GNG is a harder bar to reach, as there has to be significant coverage in reliable sources, whereas for NPOL the bar is simply holding a qualifying office. Curbon7 (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point although I've seen the other way around more frequently argued, but both my original statement and reply to King were considering GNG too. "especially for WP:NPOL" was to emphasize NPOL, but was not ignoring GNG. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Local coverage is just as valid as national coverage, however. There is a reason that WP:AUD lives inside WP:CORP instead of a broader notability guideline; there is no consensus to ban local coverage from counting towards GNG more generally. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if one were to accept the perspective on local newsreporting presented above (for which there is no consensus), multiple reports added to the article (including five front-page pieces) are from *state*-wide news reports. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_H._Baxter_Jr.&oldid=1132595016"