Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Revelle
- 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 no consensus. J04n(talk page) 11:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Randy Revelle[edit]
- Randy Revelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A WP:BLP lacking references since tagged in 2011. As a county executive, fails WP:POLITICIAN. A before search turned up some articles on his mental health work, but I don't believe that makes him notable. SportingFlyer talk 07:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. As in New Jersey, being a county executive is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass that guarantees a person a Wikipedia article just because he exists — but there's not nearly enough sourcing or substance being shown here to deem him as clearing the bar that separates a notable county executive from a non-notable one. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Keep County executive of a county greater than 2,000,000 people now. Also, member of the Seattle City Council (1974-1981). Some non-regional coverage quickly found in the New York Times and a mention in the Washington Post, as well as several wire stories about his negotiations about the Seattle Kingdome. It is hard to imagine that the county executive in one of the 15 largest counties in the United States would not have received additional significant press coverage for their work. --Enos733 (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- The population size of a county is irrelevant to notability or not — the inclusion test for county-level politicians is their degree and depth and range of sourceability, not how many people do or don't live in that county. And neither of those media hits you showed bolsters notability at all, because they're both mere blurbs that mention his name without being about him accomplishing anything that would pass a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- As seen in existing practice and as described in WP:POLOUTCOMES, there are existing descriptors that population has an effect on how we view elected officials. "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD," and "although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas." While there are caveats attached to both, (e.g. "the article should say more than just 'Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville'") there is a common sense approach to recognizing there is a qualitative difference in how we should approach the Mayor of Milwaukee, and the Mayor of Abbotsford. In the former case, there is a natural presumption that there would be significant, contemporary coverage of Mayor of the largest city in the State, while there is no such presumption for the Mayor of a city of less than 2500. Similarly, the standard should be similar for independently elected county executives. County executives of large counties may not receive much national or international coverage, but their actions would very likely receive in-depth contemporary coverage (even if not shown in the article that is nominated), and the sheer size of the jurisdiction does influence how we should approach an article. --Enos733 (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is WP:POLOUTCOMES is a lagging indicator of how AfDs work. If you look at WP:POLITICIAN, which are the criteria, WP:POLOUTCOMES probably indicates the larger cities probably have more notable press coverage to satisfy #2. In any case, #2 basically says he has to satisfy WP:GNG, and I don't think he does. SportingFlyer talk 02:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- My sense is that AfDs on local elected officials still cut multiple ways. Most elected officials from smaller jurisdictions are uncontroversially deleted, but once the city reaches a certain size and get coverage from their local, but regional paper, there is more discussion and a diverse set of arguments made. The result sometimes depend on who actually comments on the article, rather than any set criteria, largely because mayors of regional cities (and councilmembers of large jurisdictions) receive coverage of their campaigns and coverage of their actions (with a bias toward the executive in each jurisdiction). To me, this is common sense, and the size of jurisdiction helps answer the questions we ask of a BLP. --Enos733 (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is WP:POLOUTCOMES is a lagging indicator of how AfDs work. If you look at WP:POLITICIAN, which are the criteria, WP:POLOUTCOMES probably indicates the larger cities probably have more notable press coverage to satisfy #2. In any case, #2 basically says he has to satisfy WP:GNG, and I don't think he does. SportingFlyer talk 02:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- As seen in existing practice and as described in WP:POLOUTCOMES, there are existing descriptors that population has an effect on how we view elected officials. "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD," and "although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas." While there are caveats attached to both, (e.g. "the article should say more than just 'Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville'") there is a common sense approach to recognizing there is a qualitative difference in how we should approach the Mayor of Milwaukee, and the Mayor of Abbotsford. In the former case, there is a natural presumption that there would be significant, contemporary coverage of Mayor of the largest city in the State, while there is no such presumption for the Mayor of a city of less than 2500. Similarly, the standard should be similar for independently elected county executives. County executives of large counties may not receive much national or international coverage, but their actions would very likely receive in-depth contemporary coverage (even if not shown in the article that is nominated), and the sheer size of the jurisdiction does influence how we should approach an article. --Enos733 (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- The population size of a county is irrelevant to notability or not — the inclusion test for county-level politicians is their degree and depth and range of sourceability, not how many people do or don't live in that county. And neither of those media hits you showed bolsters notability at all, because they're both mere blurbs that mention his name without being about him accomplishing anything that would pass a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 14:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment Additional sources of the subject's life and career - footnoted. History Link. --Enos733 (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- The author credit on that is "This essay made possible by: King County". That makes it a primary source created by his own employer, not a notability-assisting independent source. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think he was discussing the footnotes at the end of the article, which do show Revelle was covered in local news, which is as expected. SportingFlyer talk 03:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Historylink supplies sufficient depth of coverage to meet GNG. The fact that HistoryLink gets government support doesn't change a highly valued tertiary source into a primary source; that's like saying we can't trust anything from libraries and universities because they get support from government. It's a public non-profit written by recognized experts, and professionally edited and fact checked. Even without that, the ongoing role of Revelle as spokesman and activist for people with mental health issues, and roles in several medical and mental health groups has been covered locally and nationally spanning multiple decades. KC Exec also meets WP:POLITICIAN, IMHO. -- Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's not a question of whether the organization has received financial support from the government — it's a question of the county government itself having directly created and submitted the specific piece of content under discussion. It's not about where the operating budget funding came from, it's about where the content came from. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think this question is a stretch of the meaning (and primary concern) of WP:PRIMARY). The purpose of WP:PRIMARY is to prevent unsourced, or unverifiable material from serving as the primary source of an article. In practice, a primary source is a blog, press release, or company promotional statement. But, not everything produced by a company is a concern, such as a list of elected officials, a record of official votes, or election results, because inherently, there is no interpretation of the material. Either a person served(s) in office or not. That said, HistoryLink is an independent organization from any government. And even if it were, the sources included in the article would not be a concern. --Enos733 (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, it's not a stretch of the meaning or primary concern of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Content produced by an organization that a person was directly affiliated with — its own "our staff" or "our members" profiles, etc. — certainly serves as verification that they held the claimed role, but it doesn't serve as evidence of notability. It doesn't matter that the county government republished its existing content to a separate platform after his retirement from office meant that there was no place for it on their own website anymore — because they still wrote the content themselves. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think this question is a stretch of the meaning (and primary concern) of WP:PRIMARY). The purpose of WP:PRIMARY is to prevent unsourced, or unverifiable material from serving as the primary source of an article. In practice, a primary source is a blog, press release, or company promotional statement. But, not everything produced by a company is a concern, such as a list of elected officials, a record of official votes, or election results, because inherently, there is no interpretation of the material. Either a person served(s) in office or not. That said, HistoryLink is an independent organization from any government. And even if it were, the sources included in the article would not be a concern. --Enos733 (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's not a question of whether the organization has received financial support from the government — it's a question of the county government itself having directly created and submitted the specific piece of content under discussion. It's not about where the operating budget funding came from, it's about where the content came from. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that's incredibly flawed logic regarding the library analogy. Instead, this reason this source doesn't fly is similar to a company paying a business publication to write an article about them - it's not actually independently notable. County executives do not meet WP:POLITICIAN per WP:POLOUTCOMES. The reason why so many are blue-linked is because all but two of them held other important statewide posts. SportingFlyer talk 03:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Bearcat and SportingFlyer: you can presume that I read what you posted because my post came after yours. As I was composing my post, your posts were right there, literally on the same page I was typing on. So you don’t need to repeat your arguments at me. I’m cognizant if your assetions, and I disagree. Frank Chesley is not a King County employee and his work is objective and reliable. I get that you don’t think so. You think the KC Executive doesn’t meet POL #2, and I disagree. It’s a major local office. Not a municipal office, not a county legislator. You can’t generalize about these offices in every US state; the power and scope of these offices varies. I judge this one to meet criterion #2 because I disagree with the arguments you posted 2+ times. Even if it fails POL, it passes GNG at least two different ways, in my opinion, which I formed with the awareness of what your opinion is. –Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- I apologize, but WP:NPOL does not shoehorn in automatic notability for county executives as it is not a statewide office. POL #2 is specific to the individual politician. The article was lacking references when it was nominated and the I don't believe the ones that have been found since the AfD are enough to get past the WP:GNG threshold; the NYT and WaPost articles from earlier have only trivial mentions of him, and the HistoryLink article is questionable. I wouldn't have a problem if someone wanted to draftify the article in case some of the sources from the 80's in the HistoryLink article are feature stories on him. SportingFlyer talk 05:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think these three sources would provide the in-depth feature you may be looking for (one is a book), Rabbi Raphael Levine, Profiles in Service (Seattle: Evergreen Publishing Co., 1985); Joel Connelly, "Revelle -- Seattle's Power Man," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 14, 1980 and Dan Coughlin, "Revelle's Record: a Stormy Four Years," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 30, 1985. --Enos733 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I will see if I can find them through the usual sources. SportingFlyer talk 06:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- SportingFlyer, I know you don't think this subject meets WP:POL #2. You already said it twice before I posted, and then you replied to me with a third assertion that you don't thin it meets that, I explained that really was aware (really!) that you disagreed, and you've replied again (for the FOURTH TIME) that you don't think that it meets POL #2. I get it, SportingFlyer. You don't need to tell me again because I've acknowledged explicitly that I know you disagree with me about this. I got it the first time you said it. I still think King County Executive is a "major local political figure", and I see nothing in WP:POLOUTCOMES that contradicts that. I also know you don't think this subject passes GNG, yet still I disagree. You don't need to reply again and point out what it is we disagree about. Have you read WP:BLUDGEON, ever? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with WP:BLUDGEON and I'm surprised and unhappy you're accusing me of it here in what has been a fairly constructive discussion with a small number of participants. I don't disagree with you on #2, I'm simply letting you know you're interpreting #2 incorrectly (the question isn't is King County Executive is a major local political figure, it's if Revelle is; the county executive is NOT a statewide position, so the position itself cannot convey notability) and that I'm happy to look at other sources which may show notability under WP:GNG, if you know of any. SportingFlyer talk 06:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you said that several times. I think being elected KC Executive makes one a major local political figure, and you don't. You can go on repeating it but no matter how many times you repost the same thing, nothing changes. We all heard you the first time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- "Major local political figure" is not a factor of what title the person holds — every single mayor of anywhere, every single city councillor anywhere, every single school board trustee anywhere, could always claim to be a "major local political figure" by sheer virtue of holding the political office that they hold. Majorness is measured by the depth of sourceability that is or isn't present to support a detailed and substantive article about the person, not just by the title the person happens to hold. No political office at the local level — not mayor, not city councillor, not county executive, etc. — gets an automatic notability freebie just for existing: it's the depth of sourcing and substance that tells us whether a local officeholder is "major" enough to pass NPOL #2, not just the fact of holding office in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am truly baffled at this insistence on beating this dead horse. I heard you the first time. I really, really, really do grasp the points of the argument you are making. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- And yet your entire argument continues to be based on ignoring the very point you claim to understand. SportingFlyer and I are not expressing personal opinions here — we're stating the facts of how notability on Wikipedia works for local political officeholders, and instead of actually showing any improved evidence of how Revelle actually satisfies any of the facts of how notability works for local political officeholders you just keep reasserting that you understand what we're saying while completely failing to shift your core notability argument to account for what we're saying. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you think I'm misreading the guideline. I don't know how many different ways I can acknowledge the fact that I know you think my interpretation of the WP:POLITICIAN guideline is wrong. I think you ought to assume good faith when I assure you I have read both your arguments and the guideline, and am not ignoring either. It's just that your arguments didn't convince me. Which is OK. It happens and that's fine. I'm also aware that my arguments didn't convince you. WP:BADGER, WP:COMPULSORY, WP:WABBITSEASON are just some of the pages that discuss the fact that arguments that one finds unconvincing can be left alone. Since it's not a vote and the closing process is all about disregarding poor arguments, it isn't necessary to get me to see the light at any cost. If I am utterly wrong, then we can all trust that the closing editor will disregard what I say. Maybe it will help if I break this down. Here:
The words say "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", and I don't see how anyone could expect that all editors would agree all the time as to what qualifies as "major" and "significant". Maybe you think I think it says "Local political figures are automatically notable"? I don't think it says that. I think it says they can be notable if the political figure is local, that is, below a statewide office, but something greater than dog catcher. POLOUTCOMES suggests they must be greater than municipal (city) level -- higher than a mayor, and not a county legislator. KC Exec is a higher office than mayor, and is considerably more powerful than the commissions or other executives in many counties, and is indisputably the most important county in Washington. POLOUTCOMES has nothing else to say that it applicable to a county executive, leaving us back with the text of #2 and our own interpretations of it.
The guideline gives us latitude to judge what is major. The political role played by the King County executive (which is not necessarily the same, or even a thing that exists at all, in any other Washington county) makes that office and the person who holds it "major", as I see it. To cite one example, there are innumerable transit issues that affect the entire region, and with KC being the largest of the players in that, the Executive plays an outsized role in state-level legislation related to regional transit, which affects not only the region far beyond KC, but the entire state. Federal transit decisions, both legislative and administrative, are disproportionately influenced by the largest county in Washington, and the KC Executive is frequently the person speaks for the county, and the region as a whole, on those decisions. I could say the same on drug abuse policy, or immigration policy, and many other issues. To change my mind, I would have to see quite a bit of evidence that the KC Executive doesn't have major political influence.
But I can understand if you disagree. You're allowed to and I wouldn't feel like I had to badger you about it.
Note that "significant" from POL #2 is not necessarily as much coverage as WP:GNG requires. If WP:POLITICIAN did require at least as much coverage as GNG, then what would be the point of even having subject-specific guidelines? WP:N says explicitly it doesn't need to be as much coverage as GNG; a subject is notable if it meet either GNG or a subject-specific guideline such as WP:POLITICIAN.
But in this case, my opinion is that even if Revelle didn't meet WP:POLITICIAN #2, the quantity of coverage based on the HistoryLink article + all the other coverage passes GNG, and even if that were not so, the quantity and quality of coverage of Revelle as a mental health activist would also meet the GNG criteria. IMHO. YMMV.
It is a perfectly legitimate opinion that the KC Exec is doesn't qualify as "major" and/or that the coverage is not "significant". I can respect that. And of course it's legitimate to disagree with my opinion about meeting the GNG rule. Things that might change my mind would be evidence that the HistoryLink article was not independent of Randy Revelle. Even if it is not independent of King County (which it is because "This essay made possible by King County" doesn't mean KC controls HistoryLink) the essay was written in 2012, more than 25 years after Revelle last served as KC Executive. The idea that the County is promoting either itself or a former Executive from 25 years ago is implausible. I'd need to see evidence that the County or its officers, circa 2012, could reasonably expect to benefit for doing promotional work for Revelle. A state (not county) law from 1986 requires King County to devote a portion of lodging tax revenue to cultural programs, which KC administers those funds through a public benefit authority. There is lots of objective, independent, and reliable scholarship that is published with public funds such as these. Many other sponsors participated in funding both the Revelle bio and HistoryLink in general. It's legitimate to hold the opposite opinion, and I would come around to agree with that view if I were shown evidence that there is a conflict of interest at HistoryLink.
Very often, an editor's position in an AfD discussion is a matter of individual judgement. There might not always be an overwhelming quantity of evidence and so reasonable editors could disagree in good faith. Perhaps you were having trouble seeing that this could be one such case, but I hope this helps explain why.
Or, it could be that I am grievously mistaken. It could be my judgement is badly off the mark. Regretfully, I have made errors in judgment in the past, and since I am just as fallible now as I was then, I could be making another one. I expect that in the future, I will remain fallible and will inevitably make some errors. I hope I don't make too many, and that I at least learn from the ones I have made and make new mistakes, not the same ones over again. I do not know whether or not you believe that the same capacity for error applies to your judgement. It's not my place to decide that for you. (And I am done now. Please reserve your right to post more if you wish, but I have no intention of saying any more on this.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- The point is that every single local political figure who exists at all would always pass NPOL #2 if all you had to do to satisfy "major" or "significant" was declare the title to be major and show a bit of local media coverage. Every mayor of anywhere, every town or city councillor everywhere, every member of every county council, every school board trustee, every non-winning candidate. For that very reason, the rule is that if a political role is not accepted as an automatic NPOL pass, then to make a holder of that role notable enough for a Wikipedia article you do have to show significant evidence that they're considerably more notable than everybody else at the same level of office — that is, a lot more and/or wider coverage than everybody else at the same level of office could also show. Majorness, for the purposes of passing NPOL, is not attached to the title a person holds: it's attached to the volume and range and depth of media coverage that they receive for their work in that role. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- In principle I agree, but the intent of the SNG is a recognition that to a certain degree, not all positions should be treated with the same brush. A strong (independently elected) mayor of a major city should be evaluated differently than a city councilmember of a small jurisdiction and differently than a councilmember of a major city (which Seattle probably is one). To me, the local councilmember or small city mayor (or for that matter a candidate for elected office), should receive significant coverage in a national or international coverage, while a big city mayor should only need strong in-depth coverage about themselves (in addition to routine coverage) in regional papers. In addition we should not read into WP:POLOUTCOMES a bright line between county officials and municipal officials, that somehow, it is more difficult for a county legislator (or executive) to meet WP:NPOL than a similarly situated municipal official (at least in the US). --Enos733 (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- The point is that every single local political figure who exists at all would always pass NPOL #2 if all you had to do to satisfy "major" or "significant" was declare the title to be major and show a bit of local media coverage. Every mayor of anywhere, every town or city councillor everywhere, every member of every county council, every school board trustee, every non-winning candidate. For that very reason, the rule is that if a political role is not accepted as an automatic NPOL pass, then to make a holder of that role notable enough for a Wikipedia article you do have to show significant evidence that they're considerably more notable than everybody else at the same level of office — that is, a lot more and/or wider coverage than everybody else at the same level of office could also show. Majorness, for the purposes of passing NPOL, is not attached to the title a person holds: it's attached to the volume and range and depth of media coverage that they receive for their work in that role. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you think I'm misreading the guideline. I don't know how many different ways I can acknowledge the fact that I know you think my interpretation of the WP:POLITICIAN guideline is wrong. I think you ought to assume good faith when I assure you I have read both your arguments and the guideline, and am not ignoring either. It's just that your arguments didn't convince me. Which is OK. It happens and that's fine. I'm also aware that my arguments didn't convince you. WP:BADGER, WP:COMPULSORY, WP:WABBITSEASON are just some of the pages that discuss the fact that arguments that one finds unconvincing can be left alone. Since it's not a vote and the closing process is all about disregarding poor arguments, it isn't necessary to get me to see the light at any cost. If I am utterly wrong, then we can all trust that the closing editor will disregard what I say. Maybe it will help if I break this down. Here:
- And yet your entire argument continues to be based on ignoring the very point you claim to understand. SportingFlyer and I are not expressing personal opinions here — we're stating the facts of how notability on Wikipedia works for local political officeholders, and instead of actually showing any improved evidence of how Revelle actually satisfies any of the facts of how notability works for local political officeholders you just keep reasserting that you understand what we're saying while completely failing to shift your core notability argument to account for what we're saying. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am truly baffled at this insistence on beating this dead horse. I heard you the first time. I really, really, really do grasp the points of the argument you are making. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- "Major local political figure" is not a factor of what title the person holds — every single mayor of anywhere, every single city councillor anywhere, every single school board trustee anywhere, could always claim to be a "major local political figure" by sheer virtue of holding the political office that they hold. Majorness is measured by the depth of sourceability that is or isn't present to support a detailed and substantive article about the person, not just by the title the person happens to hold. No political office at the local level — not mayor, not city councillor, not county executive, etc. — gets an automatic notability freebie just for existing: it's the depth of sourcing and substance that tells us whether a local officeholder is "major" enough to pass NPOL #2, not just the fact of holding office in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you said that several times. I think being elected KC Executive makes one a major local political figure, and you don't. You can go on repeating it but no matter how many times you repost the same thing, nothing changes. We all heard you the first time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with WP:BLUDGEON and I'm surprised and unhappy you're accusing me of it here in what has been a fairly constructive discussion with a small number of participants. I don't disagree with you on #2, I'm simply letting you know you're interpreting #2 incorrectly (the question isn't is King County Executive is a major local political figure, it's if Revelle is; the county executive is NOT a statewide position, so the position itself cannot convey notability) and that I'm happy to look at other sources which may show notability under WP:GNG, if you know of any. SportingFlyer talk 06:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think these three sources would provide the in-depth feature you may be looking for (one is a book), Rabbi Raphael Levine, Profiles in Service (Seattle: Evergreen Publishing Co., 1985); Joel Connelly, "Revelle -- Seattle's Power Man," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 14, 1980 and Dan Coughlin, "Revelle's Record: a Stormy Four Years," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 30, 1985. --Enos733 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I apologize, but WP:NPOL does not shoehorn in automatic notability for county executives as it is not a statewide office. POL #2 is specific to the individual politician. The article was lacking references when it was nominated and the I don't believe the ones that have been found since the AfD are enough to get past the WP:GNG threshold; the NYT and WaPost articles from earlier have only trivial mentions of him, and the HistoryLink article is questionable. I wouldn't have a problem if someone wanted to draftify the article in case some of the sources from the 80's in the HistoryLink article are feature stories on him. SportingFlyer talk 05:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Bearcat and SportingFlyer: you can presume that I read what you posted because my post came after yours. As I was composing my post, your posts were right there, literally on the same page I was typing on. So you don’t need to repeat your arguments at me. I’m cognizant if your assetions, and I disagree. Frank Chesley is not a King County employee and his work is objective and reliable. I get that you don’t think so. You think the KC Executive doesn’t meet POL #2, and I disagree. It’s a major local office. Not a municipal office, not a county legislator. You can’t generalize about these offices in every US state; the power and scope of these offices varies. I judge this one to meet criterion #2 because I disagree with the arguments you posted 2+ times. Even if it fails POL, it passes GNG at least two different ways, in my opinion, which I formed with the awareness of what your opinion is. –Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - does not meet NPOL criteria 1. References are insufficient to meet criteria 2.--Rpclod (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. in the last few years , consensus has been that being a member of a city council of a major internationally known city implied presumptive notability (FWIW, I did not support this extension, but my view was not the majority, and I respect consensus and consistency). The quibbling about the reliability of the sources in the discussion is an good example of how our rules for what counts aas RS for notability under the GNGcan be argued in any desired direction. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- 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.