- 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. Sandstein 19:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Charles I. Ecker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:POLITICIAN as county executive and unsuccessful primary candidate for governor. Rusf10 ( talk) 04:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 13:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why do this? Why does anyone want to delete a well-sourced, well-written article about a man who was the elected county executive of Howard County, Maryland, similar to being Mayor of a city that size; and who was, at a different point in his career, Superintendent of the Carroll County Public Schools (Maryland). Article was created in 2013 by an editor who last edited in 2016, but who created over 800 solid-looking articles. Article is not an orphan. It's reliably sources. Subject passed away in 2015 so this is neither PROMO nor MEMORIAL. It's a useful, well-sourced article and I frankly fail to understand in what way deleting a page like this is a useful contribution. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why? Because it doesn't meet our notability guidelines. Your appeals to
WP:ILIKEIT,
WP:HARMLESS, &
WP:ADHOM are not based in policy.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 16:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- It was not ADHOM. It was an honest question. You edited in mainspace for almost a decade, then, suddenly, started nominating large batches of state, county, and city-level politicians for deletion. It really was a question, but you are under no obligation to answer it. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- That, of course, is your personal opinion; editorial opinion on whether he passes WP:POL-3. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". will vary. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Why?" Because Wikipedia is not a depository of indiscriminate information. - The Gnome ( talk) 14:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why? Because it doesn't meet our notability guidelines. Your appeals to
WP:ILIKEIT,
WP:HARMLESS, &
WP:ADHOM are not based in policy.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 16:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Fails NPOL but meets GNG per significant coverage in RS. Contrary to what E.M.Gregory said above, the article could use some work but the sourcing is there for notability. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 00:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- What significant coverage? All the coverage is local, most is routine I see an obituary (routine), election coverage (also routine), and a few other articles where he is mentioned briefly (not in-depth). Politicians always get coverage in the local newspaper no matter what, its all routine (he won the election, he approved a loan, he banned a book, etc.) its going to take more than that to establish notability. He doesn't pass NPOL is right and the only thing he is known for is being a politician, so that's clearly the applicable guideline.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly meets the WP:GNG yet there is no reference to coverage in the nomination intro. Has it even been checked? gidonb ( talk) 01:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- You really need to stop with accusing me of not doing searches or accessing coverage, its not the first time. And if you actually bothered to read the my comment directly above yours, you get my analysis of the sources. That I posted it later and not in the initial nomination is irrelevant.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 02:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I did not accuse you of a thing. I asked a question. All these ultrabrief nominations focus on WP:POLITICIAN as if coverage does not matter. It's just what sticks out to me. Answers to questions and more invested nominations would be well received. gidonb ( talk) 03:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- You really need to stop with accusing me of not doing searches or accessing coverage, its not the first time. And if you actually bothered to read the my comment directly above yours, you get my analysis of the sources. That I posted it later and not in the initial nomination is irrelevant.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 02:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Meets GNG, I see multiple in-depth articles in reliable sources on him starting in 1990 at Newspapers.com and Genealogy Bank and Newspaperarchive and two more obits. -- RAN ( talk) 15:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment When such a significantly covered individual is nominated for deletion, WP:SNOWBALL applies. To preempt, it can still be withdrawn. gidonb ( talk) 16:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Snowball, after two votes, am I supposed to take that seriously?--
Rusf10 (
talk) 10:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- The subsequent two opinions did break the string of keeps. I count three or four keep opinions above in a row, definitely not two. Our process is not voting. You keep repeating this error. gidonb ( talk) 10:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- The suggestion to speedily close this AfD down cannot be taken seriously. Let's all calm down. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Snowball, after two votes, am I supposed to take that seriously?--
Rusf10 (
talk) 10:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Strong delete The sourcing is not enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi
John Pack Lambert. I noticed you set the bar high for a person to pass the
WP:GNG. For example
here you claim that one of the Germany's most decorated actresses ever does not pass the GNG. This bar was so high that the nominator withdrew while you were still at "just plain not notable". Of course there is also notability by position. In
this discussion you claim that "County Executives are a lot like mayors of major cities, so in a heavily populated county like Howard County, Maryland they will be notable." This is relevant since we're talking the direct peer and very same position as that of
Charles Ecker. It is a few years back and
Howard County, Maryland kept growing ever since. It was 321,113 last year, a population about that of
Corpus Christi, Texas. Ecker is
WP:N, considering his position in combination with the large population size of his county, as you have correctly pointed out!
gidonb (
talk) 23:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment county size has no bearing on notability.
SportingFlyer
talk 23:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why not? Wouldn't it be reasonable to hold the mayor of New York City notable by population size just as well? I think that JPL made a good point in the
linked discussion.
gidonb (
talk) 00:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- No. No policy exists which allows a politician to be notable and override
WP:GNG just because they hold an office that represents a lot of people. They have to pass
WP:GNG. We've tended to keep mayors from larger cities because of a presumption they'd meet WP:GNG, and I can tell you there are a lot of stubs for historical mayors of cities like New Orleans or Houston without any sources. It's easy to add a reliable source to those stubs, even for the ones who served a long time ago. But making an argument this non-notable politician should nevertheless remain because he represented a growing county is against policy.
SportingFlyer
talk 05:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Of course they have to pass the WP:GNG. Point is that mayors and county executives with a certain population and above always do. Ecker does, not withstanding attempts to downplay the sources. Shreve did. Otis did. With even less population, though still considerable. More than 250,000. gidonb ( talk) 13:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- No. No policy exists which allows a politician to be notable and override
WP:GNG just because they hold an office that represents a lot of people. They have to pass
WP:GNG. We've tended to keep mayors from larger cities because of a presumption they'd meet WP:GNG, and I can tell you there are a lot of stubs for historical mayors of cities like New Orleans or Houston without any sources. It's easy to add a reliable source to those stubs, even for the ones who served a long time ago. But making an argument this non-notable politician should nevertheless remain because he represented a growing county is against policy.
SportingFlyer
talk 05:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why not? Wouldn't it be reasonable to hold the mayor of New York City notable by population size just as well? I think that JPL made a good point in the
linked discussion.
gidonb (
talk) 00:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment county size has no bearing on notability.
SportingFlyer
talk 23:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi
John Pack Lambert. I noticed you set the bar high for a person to pass the
WP:GNG. For example
here you claim that one of the Germany's most decorated actresses ever does not pass the GNG. This bar was so high that the nominator withdrew while you were still at "just plain not notable". Of course there is also notability by position. In
this discussion you claim that "County Executives are a lot like mayors of major cities, so in a heavily populated county like Howard County, Maryland they will be notable." This is relevant since we're talking the direct peer and very same position as that of
Charles Ecker. It is a few years back and
Howard County, Maryland kept growing ever since. It was 321,113 last year, a population about that of
Corpus Christi, Texas. Ecker is
WP:N, considering his position in combination with the large population size of his county, as you have correctly pointed out!
gidonb (
talk) 23:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Obvious delete as lacking notability, since all coverage is local. And yes, HoCo gets local coverage in the DC and Balto. papers. Mangoe ( talk) 00:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Clear delete There's two sources which directly talk about him - one is his obituary, the other is a piece on his absolutely failed gubernatorial campaign. The Washington Post gave him a "slim to none" chance of becoming governor in this interview with him: [1] Clear WP:GNG fail. SportingFlyer talk 08:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per policy for not meeting WP:NPOLITICIAN and per WP:POLOUTCOMES. See, also, this recent AfD on an almost identical subject, as precedent. WP:GNG on its own ain't enough; needs also WP:NPOLITICIAN. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi
The Gnome, I respect your opinion. On the other hand,
two similar politicians were kept a short while ago here, so adding the link for a complete picture. As policy and our discussions indicate: "not inherently notable" (italics in the
source), so each case is decided on its own merits.
gidonb (
talk) 15:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- There was an issue of a multiple nomination with those AfDs which clouded the AfD a bit. As I've said, I don't think those politicians are notable either, but the vote there was split. Also as I've noted,
WP:GNG isn't really met here.
SportingFlyer
talk 23:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Actually the closing volunteer
says: "The double-nomination confused matters, but there is a rough consensus to keep both articles".
gidonb (
talk) 00:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- I can read. A "rough consensus" really should probably be "no consensus," but that entire AfD was plagued with the improper inclusion of two articles at once. In any case, it has no bearing on the notability of this article.
SportingFlyer
talk 02:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry but rough consensus is not the same as no consensus. Also nobody claims you can't read but your reading was and remains selective. A comment was made in response to The Gnome who clearly shops in recent
WP:POLOUTCOMES. One person in this job was recently deleted but two were recently kept. That was my point in response to his point.
gidonb (
talk) 03:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Right - and my point is it doesn't matter, and in spite of the ultimate "keep" vote (which may have been necessary given the way the nomination occurred) they were quite contested.
SportingFlyer
talk 04:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's a given that these politicians were contested as someone nominated them. That's how an AfD starts. The decision was keep and not because of the messy nomination. Because of the rough consensus. The same applies to your other point. There was no problem with a POLOUTCOMES claim before I reacted. Now that we see that recent cases are quite the other way around, it doesn't matter. Maybe not you but to The Gnome it did. To others it might. Hence my reaction. I'm not making a value statement. I'm setting the record straight.
gidonb (
talk) 04:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make here.
SportingFlyer
talk 05:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- That it is wiser not to react when you do not understand the interaction. Or, if you must, just ask questions. gidonb ( talk) 13:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- BTW in the one rare case referred above, where such a discussion ended in delete (pro-deletion closing person "weighed" the opinions by criteria that convinced her personally the most), the article was userfied. This exceptional decision could have been challenged but I thought that a less confrontational approach was far more constructive and respectful of a fellow volunteer. Everyone is welcome to improve sources before the article is republished in due time! Also with the republication, I'm a big believer in giving it time. gidonb ( talk) 19:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make here.
SportingFlyer
talk 05:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's a given that these politicians were contested as someone nominated them. That's how an AfD starts. The decision was keep and not because of the messy nomination. Because of the rough consensus. The same applies to your other point. There was no problem with a POLOUTCOMES claim before I reacted. Now that we see that recent cases are quite the other way around, it doesn't matter. Maybe not you but to The Gnome it did. To others it might. Hence my reaction. I'm not making a value statement. I'm setting the record straight.
gidonb (
talk) 04:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Right - and my point is it doesn't matter, and in spite of the ultimate "keep" vote (which may have been necessary given the way the nomination occurred) they were quite contested.
SportingFlyer
talk 04:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry but rough consensus is not the same as no consensus. Also nobody claims you can't read but your reading was and remains selective. A comment was made in response to The Gnome who clearly shops in recent
WP:POLOUTCOMES. One person in this job was recently deleted but two were recently kept. That was my point in response to his point.
gidonb (
talk) 03:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- I can read. A "rough consensus" really should probably be "no consensus," but that entire AfD was plagued with the improper inclusion of two articles at once. In any case, it has no bearing on the notability of this article.
SportingFlyer
talk 02:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Actually the closing volunteer
says: "The double-nomination confused matters, but there is a rough consensus to keep both articles".
gidonb (
talk) 00:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- There was an issue of a multiple nomination with those AfDs which clouded the AfD a bit. As I've said, I don't think those politicians are notable either, but the vote there was split. Also as I've noted,
WP:GNG isn't really met here.
SportingFlyer
talk 23:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi
The Gnome, I respect your opinion. On the other hand,
two similar politicians were kept a short while ago here, so adding the link for a complete picture. As policy and our discussions indicate: "not inherently notable" (italics in the
source), so each case is decided on its own merits.
gidonb (
talk) 15:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- If Kluge is so "highly decorated" then why is there no mention of such in the article? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
-
John Pack Lambert, that's exactly my point, isn't it? Since you do not look any further than the article, you miss out on all else that is out there: references, unique achievements, national awards, biographies. When you say: does not meet the
WP:GNG, you really mean that the references could be improved but that is where an article should get a refimprove template. Not a valid basis for deletion!
gidonb (
talk) 04:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- The center piece of Wikipedia is verifiability. If we lack sources showing notability we have no choice but to delete.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Per WP:NEXIST: "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article."
- So if you provide your opinion on a German actress, you need to look who she is, is she famous, are there sources out there, were books written about her, did she win major prizes. Same applies to this nomination and all others. Saying references aren't in the article is WP:JUSTAVOTE and, in fact, misleading when you do it while referring to the WP:GNG when really raising a problem that should exclusively be resolved in the article space. gidonb ( talk) 05:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- The center piece of Wikipedia is verifiability. If we lack sources showing notability we have no choice but to delete.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
-
John Pack Lambert, that's exactly my point, isn't it? Since you do not look any further than the article, you miss out on all else that is out there: references, unique achievements, national awards, biographies. When you say: does not meet the
WP:GNG, you really mean that the references could be improved but that is where an article should get a refimprove template. Not a valid basis for deletion!
gidonb (
talk) 04:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - Obituary, profiles while running for offices, and retirement announcements provide in-depth coverage and sufficient RS to satisfy WP:CCPOL. Deceased individual not a risk for failing NOTPROMO. Substantial public activities make me feel the individual is a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article and NOTINDISCRIMINATE does not apply. Smmurphy( Talk) 16:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - Stop the genocide of politicians at the sub-national level. What editors are doing is a disservice to readership and harmful to informed, engaged voters, which is critical to a democracy. Coverage is not local or routine and meets WP:GNG requirements. Bangabandhu ( talk) 16:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- If wikipedia articles are critical to democracy then we're all doomed. Wikipedia is not a voter's guide, there are much better places on the internet to get information about candidate positions on issues. Looking a this article, there is nothing in it that would help me make an informed decision on whether or not to vote for him. Details like where he was born, where he went to school, etc. are hopefully not things that people are considering when entering the voting booth.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 18:13, 16 June 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.