Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allister Adel

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 delete. Missvain (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allister Adel

[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 is an article on the INTERIM county attorney for a county in Arizona. All the references in the article, and everything outside it, cover her only in this capacity and seem to be routine. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interim holders of an office are less notable than regular holders of the same office, and county attorney's are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County attorneys are not inherently notable in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage to demonstrate that they're much more notable than the norm for that level of prominence — such as either nationalizing coverage that expands far beyond just where it's merely expected to exist, or a depth of coverage that plainly goes deeper than the norm and contextualizes her importance. The sources here don't do that, however, but just redundantly (and locally) offer verification and reverification that she exists, which is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A county of over 4 million people, the fourth largest in the United states, and "[a]s Maricopa County is home to almost 60 percent of the state's population, it dominates Arizona's politics." The office prosecutes 35,000 felonies annually -- and unnumbered misdemeanors. Most county/district attorneys are NN, but this one passes my standards easily. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG, arguably a WP:BLP1E fail as all of the coverage appears to be from his appointment. SportingFlyer T·C 21:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem to have qualifications to pass WP:GNG. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upon reflection, her interim status does make her less notable than I otherwise might argue. Perhaps after the election she can pass WP:GNG, but that's highly speculative.ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as coverage seems not to be about her. As concerns WP:POLITICIAN, however, given the position is a very local and appointed one, I don't even think anyone could possibly be considered inherently notable under the criteria. GNG she fails. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass GNG, may be WP:TOOSOON Dartslilly (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't find anything notable. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:30, 19 January 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.