Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Oden

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Oden

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

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

This article is about a non-notable local mayor who fails WP:POLITICIAN, because he hasn't held a high enough office. Nor is he a "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Especially since what little coverage there is on him in the article is extremely lackluster and doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Also, there is no evidence he is a "major political figure." Apparently he lost a run for state assembly or maybe he would be, but being a mayor of a local smallish (mid-sized?) town doesn't cut it. So, this article doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability Adamant1 (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable mayor of a not that significant place per the nominator's analysis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per GNG/Basic, I found Reenergized, Ron Oden returns to Palm Springs politics, Former Palm Springs Mayor Ron Oden back for seconds, Former PS Mayor Ron Oden speaks out about seeking 2nd term, Candidate Q&A: Palm Springs Mayoral Candidate Ron Oden, Palm Springs’ first openly gay Black mayor discusses changes city should make, Pride: 10 prominent Black pioneers, Honoring With Pride: Greater Palm Springs Pride recognizes recipients of its 2019 Pride Honors Awards for furthering LGBTQ causes in the Coachella Valley., Black History Month: 11 black LGBTQ trailblazers who made history, Out in the Sun: Palm Springs has transformed into an LGBTQ destination spurred by political change and a hot real estate market, A different kind of Eden: Gay men, modernism, and the rebirth of Palm Springs, Phenomenological study of transformational leadership characteristics. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is some local coverage, but not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and clearly doesn't pass WP:NPOLITICIAN.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless somebody can actually improve the article. The notability test for mayors is not automatically passed just because his name shows up in the local media where it's expected to show up, or because it's possible to find technical verification of the election results, or even because it's possible to verify a few stray facts about his personal life — the notability test for a mayor is passed by the ability to write substantive content about the concrete significance of his mayoralty: specific things he did, specific city-building projects he championed, specific effects he had on the city's development, and on and so forth. But I'm really not seeing very much of that here — supporting local organizations doesn't make him special in and of itself as that's not unusual for a mayor to do, so the most substantive such claim here is an unreferenced assertion that he doubled the city's budget, which isn't enough all by itself if there's very little content about what that extra money was spent on. Basically, to make a mayor notable enough for inclusion, there has to be a lot more meat to his article than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as first gay black mayor. There is a decent amount of coverage for the man. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while onel5959 points out he does not appear to pass WP:POLITICIAN, which requires "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels", the guideline also states "although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". Given the secondary coverage of him, this should be okay. Sxologist (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage in the Advocate - along with the claim in the Advocate that the subject's win was covered by Good Morning America and Le Monde suggest that the subject is much more notable than most and passes WP:NPOL (see WP:POLOUTCOMES) and WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call Good Morning America an in-depth reliable secondary source. There's only a single source that mentions it also and he doesn't come up on the actual Good Morning America site anywhere. So, it's a questionable claim IMO. Even if it wasn't though, there's zero evidence Good Morning America covered him in an in-depth way and it would also be extremely laughable to say they are reliable for anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My claim is not that the substance of the GMA or La Monde articles would pull the subject over GNG, it is that there is reliably sourced information that the subject's mayoral victory was covered (or at least mentioned) in national and international press. This make the subject more notable than most. In fact, if you read WP:POLOUTCOMES, it almost is if it was referring to this subject. --Enos733 (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For reasons cited by User:Editorofthewiki User:Sxologist and User:Enos733. WP:Not paper. Indeed, the article and the cited sources are not what they were when this was nominated for deletion. WP:Before and WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per citations in article establishing notability beyond just-another-mayor. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major coverage in Los Angeles Times should be sufficient. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree being black gay mayor plus Los Angeles Times enough to establish notability.

TruthLover123 (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Got more than just local coverage. Dream Focus 03:54, 9 September 2020 (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.