Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Adams (Beekman Town Supervisor)
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 delete - lack of reliable sources (the three trivial mentions given in the discussion do not meet this standard), fails WP:BIO. - KrakatoaKatie 03:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John Adams (Beekman Town Supervisor)[edit]
- John Adams (Beekman Town Supervisor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
No assertion of notability per WP:BIO, esp. footnote 6: "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." The article has been restored at deletion review, so it is not subect to speedy deletion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as the position of town supervisor is analogous to that of a mayor. Mayors are usually notable per the general notability guideline, as there is invariably significant coverage of their activities in local newspapers. It appears that trialsanderrors may havenominated this article for deletion without first attempting to find acceptable source material. John254 15:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that it is my task to look for sources, but I found this as the only source on Google News, which is of course far from fulfilling the requirements at WP:N or WP:BIO. The rest of your argument is of course proof by assertion reasoning. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many usable sources, especially local newspapers, are not available online. John254 15:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, you got nothing. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm just attempting to show that the assertion that no additional coverage in reliable sources can easily be found is false. Consider the following three additional newspaper articles: [1] [2] [3]. While they don't constitute significant coverage by themselves, the presence of three additional articles online not identified by the nominator suggests that significant coverage could be found, though perhaps not in the 5 day time frame of an AFD discussion. John254 15:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I make no such assertion, just the asertion per WP:BLP that the burden of proof lies on the editor who wants the article retained. Still delete after reviewing the new sources. We're not a directory of every minor office holder. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The rule that "per WP:BLP... the burden of proof lies on the editor who wants the article retained" applies only to articles which are non-frivolously alleged to constitute WP:BLP violations. Since no WP:BLP violations have been asserted, the rule is inapplicable. John254 15:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Crap and nonsense. The burden of proof lies with the editor who wants content included all the time. You still got nothing. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A little more civility woulda' been nice there, but trialsanderrors is basically right. From WP:BLP (important parts italicized):
andUnsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles...
--lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.
- The rule that "per WP:BLP... the burden of proof lies on the editor who wants the article retained" applies only to articles which are non-frivolously alleged to constitute WP:BLP violations. Since no WP:BLP violations have been asserted, the rule is inapplicable. John254 15:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I make no such assertion, just the asertion per WP:BLP that the burden of proof lies on the editor who wants the article retained. Still delete after reviewing the new sources. We're not a directory of every minor office holder. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm just attempting to show that the assertion that no additional coverage in reliable sources can easily be found is false. Consider the following three additional newspaper articles: [1] [2] [3]. While they don't constitute significant coverage by themselves, the presence of three additional articles online not identified by the nominator suggests that significant coverage could be found, though perhaps not in the 5 day time frame of an AFD discussion. John254 15:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, you got nothing. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many usable sources, especially local newspapers, are not available online. John254 15:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that it is my task to look for sources, but I found this as the only source on Google News, which is of course far from fulfilling the requirements at WP:N or WP:BIO. The rest of your argument is of course proof by assertion reasoning. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A Google News search for "John Adams" Beekman gets a single result (same as above), which isn't about him and certainly doesn't qualify as "significant press coverage". --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Though I was able to come up with a few more sources that the man exists, I don't see how this can ever be expanded enough for an article. Perhaps a passing mention on the town's article, along with other elected officials. Being newsworthy for a small town paper doesn't equate in notability beyond the town's borders, and Mr Adams is barely newsworthy in his local press. Jacksinterweb (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While this AfD is generating an interesting discussion on notability I do not believe that being a supervisor of a town of less than 12,000 people, and having no independent news coverage, comes close. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that the subject is notable due to lack of coverage by secondary sources - "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". [[Guest9999 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
- Delete. I am inclusionist on mayors and have repeatedly stated a personal rule of thumb that running cities over 100,000 rates some notability. This falls far short of my generous standard, and farther short of WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 06:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per greek chorus. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2008 (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.