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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Earl W. Smith (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

The subject is a Republican who is challenging Michael B. Coleman, the incumbent, in the 2011 Columbus, Ohio, mayoral election. Coverage of Smith's candidacy is relatively sparse at this point; more to the point, any coverage of Smith's candidacy is in local sources. Coverage of a candidacy for mayor in local sources is routine and does not, in my mind, establish notability. Columbus is a major city, so Smith will become notable under our guidelines if he wins the election; however, at the present time, he fails WP:POLITICIAN. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 00:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- N/ A 0 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Nominated by the major opposition party to oppose the mayor of a major U.S. city, he has received significant coverage in major local media such as the Columbus Dispatch and clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 12:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• I'm sure there's coverage in major local media for every failed mayoral candidate in each major American city throughout history, if you're willing to go back far enough and look through some microfilm. But I would argue that such coverage is fundamentally routine. What we have here is essentially a political resume for a candidate who may or may not win. If he defeats Coleman, sure, then he meets WP:POLITICIAN, but I don't think what's been found so far is enough. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 00:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment There are certain things listed in the article that, if verified in a reliable source, would constitute passage of WP:N. However, I can't verify them - specifically, that he had an article in Columbus Monthly Magazine profiling him in 2000 (I found nothing at the Columbus Monthly site [1] to verify that claim), or that he was the Fraternal Order of Police's Police Officer of the Year in 2002. Frankly, I'm having trouble finding independent sources that verify anything but the bare facts of candidacy and that he was once a cop. If that continues up to the closing, then I don't see that we can do much besides delete the article. Ray ^Talk 16:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Ray ^Talk 19:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Earl Smith is and was the City of Columbus' highest profile police officer. He was the original spokesman and founder of the departments public face. He has been in multiple television interviews, and newspaper articles, becoming one of the most recognizable names and faces in Columbus, OH. Earl Smith also holds over 200 letters of recommendation from within and without the police department. Earl Smith is also a nationally recognized speaker and teacher on defensible space in U.S. cities and neighborhoods. He is an endorsed candidate of the Republican party in the 17th largest city in the United States going against the entrenched incumbent Mayor Michael B.Coleman. Overall, there is an exuberant amount of name recognition and notoriety with Earl W. Smith; which should entitle him to a Wikipedia page. I do not see how Wikipedia can deny a highly respected, recognized, and popular police officer, community member, citizen, and mayoral candidate for a major U.S. city a Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.51.251 ( talk) 21:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment. In a two party system, I am having trouble with the proposition that the challenger of the incumbent from the other major party is not inherently notable. While our notability rules don't require us to include candidates in small local elections or from fringe parties, the nominator here is arguing for the deletion of the biography of the Republican challenger in a significant American city. Also, the Columbus Dispatch is a well known newspaper so the attempt to dismiss it as non-notable "local" media is not well taken. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 12:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• I think that Wikipedia has traditionally afforded inherent notability to unelected candidates for office only in higher-level elections. Articles on unelected major party nominees for the U.S. Senate are kept; articles on unelected major party nominees for state senate are deleted. While these are not binding precedent, the following are common outcomes for these sorts of articles: "Unelected candidates for office below the national level are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated," and "unelected candidates for municipal election are not considered inherently notable just for their candidacy and are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated." So the idea that unelected major party nominees for mayor of large cities, like Smith, are inherently notable is not one traditionally held by the Wikipedia community, nor is it found in WP:POLITICIAN.

  Also, I want to clarify that I am in no way dismissing the Dispatch as non-notable. What I said is that it is part of the local media – surely you'll agree with that – and of course it's going to cover the mayoral election. Every mayoral election in every major city in the U.S. receives this kind of coverage, which by your standards means that every major party nominee for mayor in a major city in the U.S. would meet our notability guidelines. If that's the way you feel, that's fine – we just have a fundamental disagreement on this subject. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I removed some items that I could not find sources for. I am still working on sources for some of the other items. But I did add an interview that mentions some of the awards. I've changed the article to clean up.

He is notable and will become more notable as the election draws closer. As mentioned before he has received an acceptable amount of media attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjustice13 ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete at this time. It would violate WP:CRYSTAL to speculate whether there will be sources covering Mr. Smith in detail as the election approaches. What is clear is that, despite lots of people burning lots of electrons, we can't find reliable, independent sources doing so now. Indeed, I basically put out a challenge well over a week ago to verify some basic biographical facts that I couldn't find any independent verification for, and we seem unable to do so. Thus, WP:BIO and WP:V both suggest deletion, without prejudice against re-creation if the new article actually has, you know, real sourcing meeting notability criteria. Ray ^Talk 01:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete Sorry, but candidates for office - even congressional office, much less state office, very much less city office - are not notable unless they have received the required press attention to pass WP:BIO. Mr. Smith has not. A search of Google News [2] finds a bunch of dead guys and one felon of the same name, but nothing at all about this Earl W. Smith. If he wins election he will be notable as the mayor of a major city, but as a candidate he is not. -- MelanieN ( talk) 04:31, 12 May 2011 (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.