Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Brohn

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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Brohn[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced WP:BLP of a politician notable only as a registrar of deeds at the county level. This is not an office that gets a person over WP:NPOL, so it's WP:GNG or bust -- but there are just two exclusively local sources here, both covering him in the context of criminal matters. Embezzling $561, and having to register as a sex offender, are not things that make a person suitable for permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia in and of themselves -- so the grounds for inclusion here remain at "county clerk", which is not grounds for inclusion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Inadequately sourced"??? It is and was 99% sourced. Register of deeds is a "sub-national" post (counties being a part of state government), part of the WP:NPOL standards, if not you have to spend months just listing for deletion various individual mayors of cities articles. He is also notable for how he got the position (only other Democratic to file for the primary when the incumbent died in a virtual one party county) then having to be ousted from office for misuse of government funds. I have added a source from the The Fresno Bee at Merced Sun-Star which is reliable but is it significant enough coverage of Brohn. The local paper (The Flint Journal) is also a (state) regional (metro) newspaper and the website (Mlive.com) that its articles are hosted on is a state wide news site. Also, I guess I assumed that additional sources would be found when I created the article. Spshu (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Sub-national post", in WP:NPOL, refers to state-level offices, like the state governor or members of the state legislature, and not to municipal offices. Municipal officeholders are permitted on a case-by-case basis under NPOL #3, where the depth and quality of the sourcing that can be provided is what makes the difference between a keep and a delete — and the way the rule works is that for most cities, only the mayor is even a maybe (conditional on sourceability), while even city councillors normally get included only in the very largest metropolitan global cities and anybody below that gets included very nearly never. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom. I appreciate the creator put in good-faith work on this article but being a county registrar of deeds is not a statewide position as set out at WP:NPOL. Coverage relates entirely to criminal matters and he fails WP:CRIMINAL in that context. AusLondonder (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County officials are not generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly embezzlement is too common to make a person notable. This will get local coverage but nothing more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Genessee County (its main city is Flint) might be a place that the county executive was default notable, but they lack such, but the register of deeds is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining the article still found nothing for any actual convincing signs for independent notability and there's simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:30, 23 June 2016 (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.