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.
Michig (
talk) 06:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I retrieved the obituary
here which provides a lot of good career information but that's basically where it ends because my searches at News, Newspapers archive, Books, Highbeam, thefreelibrary and Newsbank all found nothing. He meets being elected to a notable group but there's no significant and in-depth coverage about him and lastly there's nowhere to move the article (the only linking pages are Deaths in 2000 and Holloway (surname)).
SwisterTwistertalk 06:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: Pretty much an unfilled bio for an early state legislator, and there isn't info., apparently.
Hithladaeus (
talk) 12:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: To explain my opinion above: if we can't find biographical material outside of an obituary or any history that explains the person at all, then the "article" will be a single fact. In that case, it is exactly the same in terms of information access to the public as having a redlink in a list of state legislators. If a "list" article says "Bob was in the House 18__ to 18__" and the "article" says the same thing, it won't matter if there is a notability guideline saying the person is notable or not. Others may vote reflexively on the basis of "guidelines" if they choose.
Hithladaeus (
talk) 00:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I tagged for sourcing. The reason to keep, in addition to policy, is the expectation that someone may come along - a grad student, local historian, descendant, or Wikipedia bent on improving coverage of Florida politcians and add reliably sourced material to the page. It happens every day. Moreover, I assume that the basic facts on the page are correct, but the url to which they are sourced has changed. that's why it's best ot just tag for sourcing. Also a politician form 1980 is not an "early politician". Early, for the Florida legislature, would be the Buchanan administration.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 12:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I believe they pass
WP:NPOLITICIAN, as they represented a statewide legislature.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 12:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Confirmed state representative and senator passing
WP:POLITICIAN.
[1][2] I just did a cursory search of Google's newspaper archive. I'll do a more involved search later.
• Gene93k (
talk) 19:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. I am leaning "keep" based on the number of GNews hits.
[3] Is his middle name spelled properly in the article? -
Location (
talk) 06:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)reply
KEEP see
WP:POLITICIAN "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". Even if ther was nothing more to say about him than the fact that he was elected, we would keep the stub.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 12:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)reply
The article definitely needs sourcing improvement, but a person who served in a state legislature is always a valid article topic per
WP:NPOL #1. And at least 49 separate Google News hits do come up for him under the form "Vernon Holloway" (and a couple more if you use the middle initial "C."), and I suspect that the same will happen in other databases as well — I can almost guarantee that the nominator came up dry because they searched on his full name instead of the forms that were actually going to get us somewhere. Flag for refimprove, and move the article to
Vernon Holloway per
WP:COMMONNAME, but keep.
Bearcat (
talk) 01:03, 3 June 2015 (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.