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.
Highly promotional resume-style article. Sure, he gets a few mentions in the paper, but that's to be expected given his position. The position, as far as I know, in no way guarantees inherent nobility on Wikipedia, and I see no reason to accept that this particular is notable via the GNG or otherwise; all the coverage is just about a man doing his job, no in-depth discussion that makes him notable.
Drmies (
talk)
17:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)reply
I just noticed that this had been nominated before; I am not at all convinced that the coverage brought up there makes him notable. Being interviewed in a documentary is not in-depth discussion though it may point at some kind of notability--and being appointed to an advisory committee is, I'm sorry to say, not as special as one might think. I note also that (in response to
NinjaRobotPirate) yes, the Baltimore Sun is a good paper of national standing, but not of national distribution, and that the coverage of Dance in that paper is of the regional kind. (Lots of folks get recognized by the president; it takes national coverage to really make that newsworthy.) Same with links posted there by
Jreferee: I see three links to newspaper articles, and those are all papers from the area--in other words, it's routine coverage, as is suggested in comments by
John from Idegon,
Onel5969,
RoySmith,
Cullen328 (I think I pinged everyone from the first AfD). Oh, and I know there was a tweet last year that generated some minor coverage, but that also doesn't convince me. Everyone tweets, and retweets, and gets criticized, and on and on. Well, everyone except Cullen, who can't tweet from his rotary phone.
Drmies (
talk)
17:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete No importance,promotional,Many superedents in the world doings works world wide,it is not the dircctory for superendents,strongly suggesting delete (
Kalidas100 (
talk)
17:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC))>reply
Keep -
He's not really a politician, he's a notable school district superintendent who has been personally recognized by the
President of the United States and is consistently on Baltimore news sources.
The StormCatcher(talk)(contribs) 08:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep Several sources have been found, there is a reason the first discussion ended in a keep. The person has been personally appointed by Barack Obama. For reference here are
Jreferee's references that he provided from the previous AfD, which was closed as keep.
Delete - fails GNG and NPOL. And yes he's a politician, not being an elected politician doesn't mean he's not a politician. Not a single source provided above speaks to notability except perhaps the Sun. The Sun is local, ITSE is not independent, no indication districtadministration is a reliable source (trade association publications generally aren't), the thing from highbeam is a press release. Can't make any analysis of the Richmond paper reference, but I do not see any discussion in detail in reliable sources totally independent of the subject that is needed here. And the contention that being mentioned by the President equates to inherent notability is laughable.
John from Idegon (
talk)
23:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment:@
John from Idegon: I would like to just mention here that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a place for asserting your views as absolutes unless you provide merit for those views. For example, you have enthusiastically engaged Catcher with saying “And the contention that being mentioned by the President equates to inherent notability is laughable.” To who is it laughable and do you have consensus for this notion? You have then gone onto attacking Catcher by saying “And I'd also add that the same user voting twice using different signatures, coupled with all the sock votes screams
WP:PAID” this is a serious accusation and should at the least be merited in the behaviour of the person who you are attacking with it. It might be worth remembering that Wikipedia is a place with many different views and just because others might not share your own it does not give you leave to start going out of your way to invalidate the opinion of others. This type of carry-on leads inevitably, as proven here, to one making rash and non-objective decisions based on dogma rather than actual facts. Wiki-CoffeeTalk11:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)reply
John from Idegon, you are gravely mistaken. The second vote you are referring to with the two different signatures was from a quote that WikiCoffee used. WikiCoffee quoted my previous comment from the first nomination when I had a different signature. I think that having been here for three years I would know the rules of ASD. I did not vote using two different signatures. Please look back at what I am referring to, for I do not wish to have false action taken against me.
CatcherStormtalk02:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - I can see nothing notable in this article. This is a County Schools superintendent. Probably does an excellent job, but not notable by Wikipedia's rules.VelellaVelella Talk 02:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete While seeming like a very notable school superintendent and individual (meant sincerely), I don't see WP:NOTABILITY being met enough to merit a Wikipedia article.
First Light (
talk)
09:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Cases like this are a little vague because, while the position this person holds is "important", it is by nature "local" and not notable per se. In doing some perusing, it seems we generally do not have articles on
superintendents of large districts, even when mentioned by name, except in cases like
Barbara Byrd-Bennett when there's notability/notoriety for additional reasons.
Agricola44 (
talk)
20:44, 13 February 2017 (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.