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.
Michig (
talk) 08:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
WP:BLP, with a decidedly advertorial/résumé slant to it, of a local law enforcement officer with no particularly strong claim of encyclopedic notability. Of the six sources here, two are
primary source meeting minutes which do not assist in establishing notability per
WP:GNG, one is a
WP:ROUTINE table of raw election results on the county's website, and the three that are actually to real media coverage aren't about the subject: all three are about criminals, and two of them merely provide glancing namechecks of Stouch's existence while the third doesn't even do that. And for added bonus, this article was "peer reviewed" by the subject himself literally just five minutes after it was created -- which means even the original creator has to have a direct
conflict of interest of some kind, because how else could Stouch have known it was here that quickly? (Plus "peer review" isn't about the subject verifying the article's accuracy or not; it's about established Wikipedians verifying the article's conformity with our rules and standards about sourcing and formatting and notability.) None of this is enough to make a township-level law enforcement officer notable enough for an encyclopedia article.
Bearcat (
talk) 03:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete An elected law enforcement officer in a township of roughly 10,000 people does not meet
WP:POLITICIAN and the references in the article come nowhere near to meeting the General notability guideline, as Bearcat explained.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete It's not even close. There is no defensible rationale for inclusion in any Wikipedia guideline or policy I am aware of, and the reasons for removal are many, as touched upon above by Cullen328 and Bearcat.
Marteau (
talk) 07:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete politician way below the notability threshold.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 22:24, 16 October 2016 (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.