Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Prang (LA County Assessor)

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. ✗plicit 23:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Prang (LA County Assessor)[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)

Poorly sourced and highly advertorialized article about a local political figure not shown to pass WP:NPOL. If his name sounded familiar to you, we've indeed been through this before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Prang -- which got recreated just days after deletion and was salted, explaining why this version features such weird overdisambiguation in the title.
But county assessor is not a level of office that confers automatic free passage of NPOL, and this version as written is extremely overdependent on primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- the test at NPOL #2 is the depth and range of WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing that can be shown to demonstrate that his career in politics has made him a subject of third-party coverage and analysis, and is not passed just by using primary sources to verify that he exists, but what little GNG-worthy reliable sourcing is present here doesn't come close to matching what's actually required.
There's still just nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to entitle him to a Wikipedia article -- and conflict of interest editing might be in the mix of possibilities here, given that this version was started by a virtual WP:SPA with virtually no established history of contributing on any other topic. I also note that this version studiously avoids the prior version's attempt to stake his notability on detail-free allusions to some sort of unspecified sex scandal, but that's beside the point since it wouldn't make a difference to the article's value either way (though it does bolster my COI suspicions). Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically fails WP:PROMO along with WP:GNG. But once again I basically just agree with everything Bearcat has written... SportingFlyer T·C 12:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new editor. Can you help me make this page better and avoid deletion? Coffee&2Ideas (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He would have to have both a much stronger notability claim than just existing as a county assessor — that's not a level of office at which people automatically get articles just for existing as officeholders, it's a level of office at which you would have to be able to demonstrate credible grounds to consider him one of the most uniquely significant county assessors in the entire country — and much, much better and more reliable sourcing (meaning media coverage about him) to support it than you've shown. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COI, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:POV, and WP:TNT. In theory, he is notable - as a county-wide official of America's largest county - but a page that is an on-line free election ad, with nary a mention of multiple scandals, is just an illegal theft of a charity's property. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2024 (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.