Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sibley

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sibley[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)

Doesnt establish his notability as per WP: GNG. While he has held various positions and roles in business and politics I think the references provided do not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV.

The philanthropy section is also failing as it lacks the necessary citations for verification WP:BLP. Without further evidence of in-depth coverage from independent sources, the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards for a standalone BLP Comintell (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or Draftily. Water thin argument for notability. and the page needs complete revamp~~

~~Comintell (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck AfD initiator's !vote. Once is enough. -The Gnome (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw AfD nomination I was misinformed about the notability criteria for politicians, specifically WP:NPOL. Apologies to the closing admin. This will not happen again.

Comintell (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Journalism, Law, California, and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NPOL a politician holding state/province legislative office is notable. I imagine there would be offline coverage in newspapers from the early 2000s when he was in office. Article may need cleanup to meet quality standards, but it's certainly not irredeemable. AusLondonder (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NPOL as a member of an American state legislature. Deletion is not clean-up. Curbon7 (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps doesn't establish his notability as per WP: GNG, but passes WP:NPOL.Gedaali (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does need some improvement, but state legislators are inherently notable per WP:NPOL #1. Since he held office 20 years ago, the coverage that he surely had due to being a state legislator would be unlikely to Google well, and would almost certainly have to be retrieved from archives — but that's precisely why we have NPOL to clarify that certain roles are inherently notable even if the article is weak in its current form, because Wikipedians tend to be lazy about locating sourcing that would actually require effort to find, and state legislators do typically have more coverage than anybody's actually been arsed to uncover. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Members of the state legislatures are presumed notable per WP:NSUBPOL. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State legislator. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't quite like that there is some promotional writing in the article and there isn't a lot of independent sources, but this meets WP:NPOL. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL, but clean up the promotional language in the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:40, 26 April 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.