Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Donnell

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 as we've got a case of WP:SNOW here‎. Orange Mike | Talk 20:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Donnell[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)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as the only conceivable claim to notability would be the WP:SENSATIONal comments he made about Mount Rushmore being a portal to hell or whatever. If there ever is more attention than this WP:ONEEVENT, I'm sure the Wikicritters will rush to restore the article. jps (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Dakota. jps (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NPOLITICIAN as an elected member of a state legislature. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: satisfied WP:NPOL--PARVAGE ^talk! 13:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there some WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that I am not aware of that elected members of state legislatures in the US are automatically notable? If so, this is horrifying. There are some 7,758 state legislators in the US with turnover rates between 20% and 30%. This means over the course of Wikipedia's 22 year existence that would mean, conservatively, a staggering 30,000 BLPs. I am highly suspect that this is something the community agreed to. jps (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - After some digging, is appears that people who monitor WP:NPOL really do seem to think that it confers automatic notability on any state(or equivalent political-level) legislator in the world. I am floored and started Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#WP:NPOL_BLP_issue to see if others are aware of this. jps (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really horrifying. Once I wasn't agreed with this. But whatever, rules are rules. Happily passes for politicians. But things needed to be improved. PARVAGE ^talk! 18:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A topic that is "presumed" to be notable under a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) is not a guaranteed "keep", contrary to what the two previous !voters seem to think, because sourcing is still a central issue on Wikipedia. According to policy (WP:SNG): "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found," and here "significant coverage" means from independent, reliable secondary sources. This article lacks such sourcing. NightHeron (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with NightHeron's arguments. Paul H. (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Calling a sitting legislator WP:ONEEVENT seems wrong. At the very least their notable for being elected and then the scandal. This is a currently sitting legislator that meets WP:NPOL. The presumption exists because state legislators are highly likely to have sources that cover their state legislative career (it's almost guaranteed they get significant coverage). I don't think the delete votes have rebutted that presumption at all. There is no proof that "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found." I added more sources to the article and am sure more exist than what I've added.

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject clearly passes WP:NPOL as an American state legislator. NPOL is not the automatic conferral of notability per se, moreso it is the presumption that coverage exists. Because politicians always generate coverage (in national, regional, and local media) through their actions, we thus assume they are notable even if the coverage is not presently evident in the article or on Google (because many of these sources may be offline/non-digitized; this is especially important in countries where Internet access may be limited at best). Curbon7 (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you think this is a novel interpretation, see for example Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2015#WP:POLITICIAN Issue (Cullen's example at the end is a good one). By all means, if you don't like it and think it should be a different way, then write your ideas at the WP:Village Pump for consideration, but we should not be legislating what has been the SOP for 15 years at a random AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought the discussion to BLPN. Have you guys actually thought about the implications of this SOP? I can't find any clear discussion of such. The example you cite is an exception to the rule which is rather bizarre. If I was a little more WP:POINTy, I would start a bot that would autogenerate BLPs for every single state legislator Neelix-style. I imagine then the policy would change right quick. Y'all aren't thinking this through. jps (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per presumption of notability under WP:NPOL. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:NPOL as an elected state legislator. WP:N states that a subject is presumed notable if it meets either the general notability guideline... or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (emphasis mine), so long as the article is not excluded under WP:NOT. In other words, meeting a subject-specific notability guideline is more than sufficient to meet our notability standards. What's more, he has been covered both while running for office ([1] [2]) as well as while in office ([3]), and he's not exactly a low-profile figure, so I don't see a plausible WP:BLP1E issue here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only does he obviously meet NPOL as clearly demonstrated, but putting that aside for a moment the coverage of him is quite significant. I'm struggling to see policy grounds for this nomination. AusLondonder (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:NPOL as a duly elected member of a state legislature. Obviously such articles still have to be monitored for WP:BLP compliance, but there's no valid argument to be had that some state legislators are somehow less notable than other state legislators. I mean, seriously, if a state legislator who clearly has media coverage is still somehow non-notable anyway, then what else could possibly be the bar for making any other state legislator "more notable than the norm" at all? Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NPOL states "The following are presumed to be notable: The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.". While I think the article should include things such as committee assignments, maybe some votes on key issues, in addition to what it includes now (yes even the lunatic podcast interview). It clearly qualifies under current guidelines AND is frankly better sourced and better written than most state legislator articles.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:58, 2 July 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.