Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Penzone

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. T. Canens (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Penzone[edit]

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

Delete. Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a county sheriff, whose only discernible claim of notability is that he defeated a much more nationally famous predecessor. "County sheriff" is not a level of office that constitutes an automatic WP:NPOL pass -- but the sourcing here doesn't get him over WP:GNG either: of the five references, one is his own self-published campaign website, one is a user-generated public relations wiki, two are routine local coverage of the election campaign itself, and while one source does expand beyond the purely local it (a) is not substantively about Penzone, and (b) exists primarily because Arpaio (the predecessor he defeated) was a nationally-notable figure and not because Penzone has gotten there yet. No prejudice against recreation in the future if much more sourcing and substance can be shown than this, but "defeating a nationally controversial figure in an office that doesn't normally confer an automatic NPOL pass on every holder of that office" is not enough, in and of itself, to make a county sheriff more notable than the thousands of other county sheriffs across the entire United States who don't have Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without a doubt, he has gained more coverage as a result of his opponent than would a typical sheriff candidate. But, that coverage is of him and his tenure. Here's CBS News, and there has been tons of coverage in the local Maricopa County media, including AZCentral, KTAR, 12news, and the Phoenix New Times. Coverage appears likely to continue as an elected official in a high profile job. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All local political figures and elections always generate local coverage in their local media — so coverage in Phoenix/Maricopa is merely WP:ROUTINE, because such sources are merely expected to exist and do not constitute proof that he's more notable than the norm. And the coverage beyond Maricopa, as of right now, attests to Arpaio's notability, not Penzone's, because Arpaio is the reason it was a news story anywhere beyond Maricopa. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've beefed up the article considerably and I think it gets over the hurdle. And while it's true that there are thousands of county sheriffs across the United States, Maricopa County is the fourth-most populous country in America. Neutrality^talk 19:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on current sources of the article, he seems to have enough direct coverage in third party sources to pass basic notability, though hopefully the article continues to expand beyond the recent election. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are all local except 2 or 3, and either don't say much other than he won the election, or focus more on his predecessor than himself. I don't think this is sufficient in-depth coverage. Maricopa county is indeed large and Penzone might cause significant controversy depending on how much of Arpaio's legacy he changes and how his actions are received. But so far all he has done is win the election, which probably would have happened regardless of the challenger. MB 22:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to the significance of his election over a nationally-known opponent.--TommyBoy (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Defeated a nationally-known opponent in an election for a normally non-notable office" is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself — not least because the mere existence of an article about Penzone can then be reified into him also being claimed as "nationally-known" enough to create another automatic inclusion freebie for the next holder of the office after him, on and on recursively ad infinitum. If the office isn't one where all holders automatically qualify for Wikipedia articles, then a holder of that office cannot inherit notability just because his predecessor happened to qualify as the exception to the rule. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I appreciate that this is a borderline case with nuanced policy considerations, and Bearcat has made his case well--but in the final analysis, I feel that the aggregate of the sources is sufficient to at least minimally break the WP:GNG threshold. Having reviewed each of the sources, I am not convinced that there is anything particularly WP:routine about the coverage as whole (local or otherwise), nor that it is particularly focused on Arpaio to the exclusion of Penzone. I'm not doing cartwheels over it, but there does seem sufficient notability for an article here. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nationally known as Joe Arpaio's replacement. More than enough for notability, will no doubt recive attention for years to come. -O.R.^Comms 06:22, 13 January 2017 (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.