Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Richards (politician)

Add links
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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. It would have been helpful if editors arguing to Keep this article had mentioned sources they believe establish GNG. Think about doing this in future AFD discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Richards (politician)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Paul Richards (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A rather lengthy article, though on further examination I am unsure whether the subject passes WP:GNG. There are several LA Times articles but most are just WP:ROTM election coverage and such. His political activity is certainly not enough to establish notability; as for his criminal case, I found a KCAL article and two LA Times articles, and several other local articles from smaller outlets. I don't believe that meets WP:SIGCOV as it's all local. One could argue that his claim to notability would be that he apparently received one of the longest sentences ever in a federal political corruption case. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I unfortunately don't have access to those websites yet, so I do the best WP:BEFORE check I can with what I have available, and as a result they're not always great. Most of the time I don't come to AfD proclaiming that these articles need to be deleted, just that I don't personally think they pass our guidelines with what I can find and letting the community decide. That said I don't really think his political career alone passes WP:GNG or WP:NPOL if it's all local newspapers per the paragraphs by Bearcat and Shaws username at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Cid. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you should be pretty certain if you are proposing an article for deletion since a lot of people often have put a lot of time into the article. The idea is to improve the encyclopedia so perhaps it would be best to get access and maybe try to improve some articles (it is a whole lot harder to save an article from deletion than it is to propose it); and deletions are often quite inconsistent as it turns on who shows up to comment. Also, you need to notify all the significant contributors on their talk page that you are proposing a deletion. An article can be based on all local sources if it mentions why the mayor was significant to the city or town. Nearly every mayor pre-1900 mayor's activities are mostly based on local sources.Patapsco913 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you don't have access thorough the Wikipedia library? You definitely meet the time and editing requirements Shaws username . talk . 20:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering signing up for the Wikipedia Library for different reasons in the future, so I may do that sooner. I hadn't before thought of notifying every significant contributor. I may start doing that. I still don't really think that solely local coverage could provide notability in most cases, and as for your last sentence, most of those mayors were mayors of major cities that give inherited notability. Though rereading WP:NPOL #2, Richards may pass notability guidelines with the combined coverage of his criminal case and political career. Advice is always appreciated, I am always working on my mistakes. Shaws, do you have any thoughts on this? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You definitely should, it's an incredibly useful reasource and a lot nicer than paying for all the repositories individually.
I'm leaning towards a keep, there's a lot of information from reliable sources for WP:NPOL #2, although he definitely fall short of being WP:CRIME notable (politcians getting bribed is hardly unusual) it's also not WP:ROTM (also I'd point out that as much as I cite ROTM, it is an essay and not a policy) I'd be ok with keeping it under WP:GNG like BabbaQ and Patapsco913 said or npol 2 with the sources in the article at the moment. Shaws username . talk . 21:44, 2 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Richards_(politician)&oldid=1212695435"