Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Young (politician)

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Young (politician)

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

On the surface, the subject of this article meets WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of West Virginia's state legislature; however, further investigation reveals that the level of coverage about him in reliable sources is insufficient to support a standalone encyclopedia article about him. Young served a two-year term in the legislature from 2012-2014, then lost the 41st district election in 2014 and then again in 2016. Within his two years of office, Young co-sponsored various bills, some of which I have attempted to add to the article in efforts to expand it, but all of the coverage that even mention Young do so in passing. Attention is entirely focused on the bills themselves; there is no real biographical information to write about.

As a result, this article is destined to be either a WP:Permastub or a WP:COATRACK article about all of the bills he's ever supported, both of which are unsatisfactory encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria states that meeting [WP:POLITICIAN] does not guarantee that a subject should be included. This is one such case where a satisfactory encyclopedia article simply cannot be written about this subject due to the lack of any significant coverage about him, despite technically satisfying WP:POLITICIAN. Mz7 (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Lots of coverage exists about an Adam Young from Minnesota, who is the musician behind the musical project Owl City. That Adam Young is completely unrelated to this one. Mz7 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of a state legislature. Passes WP:NPOL. The presumption behind a SNG is that there is enough secondary information for a complete article. Even a quick search of online sources shows what committees he served on in the legislature, election results, and a story about his swearing in as a legislator, in addition to several independent sources talking about where the subject stood on issues and a campaign FB page that provides clues about the subject's life (and opportunities for other searches). This search does not include any local papers or news sources which may or may not have an online archive. --Enos733 (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does carry that presumption, but the problem is, an in-depth search reveals that there is not nearly enough information. The committees, election results, swearing in – that's all routine stuff that can be summarized in a few sentences. Where the subject stood on issues is important, but it is also important that the coverage be about him and not just the issue with a passing mention of him – otherwise, the entire article becomes a WP:COATRACK for issues he's supported. A campaign Facebook page is not the best place to cite for neutral, biographical information per WP:PRIMARY, let alone to support notability. Do you think you could point me to a few high-quality secondary sources that are primarily about Adam Young? (That's the kind of material we need to build a "complete" article.) Mz7 (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good example is the information I added about the "Nonprofit Youth Organization Tax Exempt Support Amendment" Young supported. The citations are primarily about the bill itself, and they only mention Young in passing, listing his name a cosponsor. The rest of the article is analysis of the bill, which is not really relevant in a biographical article. Mz7 (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote to WP:NPOL says that the goal of Wikipedia is to be a complete record of coverage of "major political offices," which is defined to include members of state and provincial legislators. ("However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless."). As editors, we are not limited to the use of online sources. As an example, the subject's hometown paper, the Nicholas Chronicle, has its content behind a paywall and again, the presumption is that there would be relevant information in their archives. The subject is also name-checked in several articles in The Register-Herald; the AFL and West Virginians for Life, documented the subject's voting record on particular issues. In addition, several West Virginia papers wrote about the subject's trip to North Dakota to study the state's Legacy Fund. (And, fundamentally, once a subject meets the primary criteria for notability, the "notability guidelines do not apply to content within the article" WP:NNC). --Enos733 (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I'm reluctant to support the deletion of any article that meets WP:Politician, but Mz7 makes a pretty good case here for why this should be an exception. With that said, I would oppose deletion if Young were currently in office. Orser67 (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our stated intention is to be as complete as feasibly possible a reference for all legislators at the state or federal levels, not to pick and choose based on some criterion outside of whether they got covered as politicians or not. NPOL doesn't require that we be able to source biographical information about him — that's certainly nice to provide whenever possible, but what's essential in an article about a politician is coverage of his work in politics, not necessarily his birthday or the name of his mother or where he went to high school. We actually can't source that type of personal information about most politicians at all, if the legislature's own website hasn't actually included that information in the self-published biographies present there — because outside of the topmost tier of Trumps and Obamas and Trudeaus and Merkels and Macrons, most politicians' private lives just don't actually get covered that much at all. Lots of politicians' articles don't contain that sort of detail at all, and just stick to covering and addressing what we can source about their work in the legislative office they held — that's the stuff that's critical for our article about a politician to address, because their political work is the core reason why they have an article at all. Personal stuff is nice to include when we can, but not essential enough to be the inclusion dealbreaker for a person who has held a notable office. We need to be able first and foremost to source his work as a legislator, not necessarily his personal life — and nominator was clear that the sources we need for his work as a legislator are exactly the ones that are available. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is not temporary, so if a person was a state legislature member they are always notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES. State legislators have a huge amount of influence and power over millions of peoples' daily lives - everything from marriage laws, to taxes, to energy law, to zoning and economic incentives - and for that reason any legislator is notable, and remains notable for ever and ever. This guy was more than a mere back bencher. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. State legislators are inherently notable, if they have done something important, which this one has. Elliot321 (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Enos733, Bearcat and Bearian. The fact that he ran and lost after his term suggests he may continue running in future races, in which case many Wikipedia users are likely to want to look at his legislative record and other details, and Wikipedia is (for good or ill) many people's first stop when googling. This is a textbook example of why WP:NPOL exists. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 14:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through all the comments above, I am having some second thoughts about my stance. As Bearcat mentioned, I did make clear that we could plausibly write a whole article about all of the bills that Young has ever voiced his public support for, but the reason I brought this discussion forth is because such information struck me as off-topic for an article that should be about the legislator. Yes, the article should principally be about Young's legislative work, and not solely his personal life, but in my mind when I nominated, there needed to be legislative work substantive enough for Young to be more than just a passing mention. None of the sources I'm reading describe his legislative work in any greater detail than "among 20 others, Young supported this bill." It's true that state legislatures as a whole have immense influence over the daily lives of people, but I think some degree of caution is healthy before jumping straight to the assumption that each individual member of such a legislature is automatically notable solely for their membership (and as I mentioned in my nomination, our guidelines do call for this degree of caution). As it appears consensus agrees that this particular member is notable, I respect that outcome. Mz7 (talk) 21:49, 23 August 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.