Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Everett Graham

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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Charles Everett Graham

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Charles Everett Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Biography of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. To be fair, this was created at a time when our inclusion criteria for mayors was "inherently notable if the city has crossed the 50K bar in population", but that was deprecated several years ago -- in 2021, the notability bar for mayors requires a substantial and well-sourced article that establishes the significance of their mayoralty by addressing specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects they had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this basically just documents that he existed as mayor, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, which is exactly the kind of article about a mayor that caused us to deprecate the old "50K = free pass" standard. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the referencing from having to be considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Might be hard to find any news articles from back then, so maybe the requirements should be less stricter on this one.Jaxarnolds (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Archives of newspaper articles this far back definitely do exist and are accessible to Wikipedians, so mayors from this era aren't exempted from having to pass WP:GNG just because it might take a little bit more work to find sources than it would for the current incumbent. Either enough sourcing is shown to exist, or the article goes away, period. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Cut and paste nomination with precisely same text as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond Stanislas Aubry, nominated for deletion 41 seconds later; it's not unreasonable to consider a significant lack of BEFORE here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

One is perfectly capable of finding a closely related cluster of articles that all suffer from similar quality issues, doing the before work on all of them in one shot since one would have to look in the same places anyway, and then doing the nominations all in one shot after failing to find any sources that would have made a meaningful difference. In other words, it is entirely possible to go "refcheck refcheck refcheck refcheck, nom nom nom nom" instead of "refcheck nom, refcheck nom, refcheck nom, refcheck nom". So no, you're not getting a "nominator did not do due diligence" argument to stick to me, of all people. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I responded to this cut and paste already at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond Stanislas Aubry; despite the assertion, there is no attempt to do anything personal here, I'm simply noting that the nomination contains no evidence of a *complete* BEFORE process. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No part of the Wikipedia process requires every AFD nomination to contain a painstakingly detailed list of every individual research step they took to determine whether better sourcing could be found to salvage the article with. Nomination statements are supposed to be as brief as feasibly possible while still covering the major points that need to be considered, not Russian novels. If Joe Biden or Justin Trudeau, who very obviously have strong sources out there, somehow had Wikipedia articles that weren't actually citing any of them, and thus somebody nominated them for deletion on the grounds of failing WP:GNG, then there would obviously be a credible argument that the nominator clearly hadn't even attempted to do any WP:BEFORE work — but AFD nominations are not required to contain comprehensive bulletpointed lists of every individual research database the nominator checked, so on a topic like this your grounds for a "nominator didn't do any BEFORE" argument would be "I did my own research and look at all these solid sources I found", not "nominator didn't explicitly document every individual research step they took". Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable to expect a nominator in a case like this to have conducted a search through a newspaper archive and reported the, presumed, lack of results; comparing this to a Russian novel is hyperbole. Instructing others, as above in the response to Jaxarnolds, to do something which is part of the BEFORE process again reinforces a sense that a considered, complete nomination is absent in this case. I'll say no more other than to indicate that I have no doubt your efforts here are in good faith. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 4 December 2021 (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.