Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy Barker (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Barker (politician)

[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)

Two editors have prodded the article because the person does not meet out WP:NPOL guideline. The person placed fifth in a Republican primary. They reached the office of Treasurer for the Quapaw nation which has 13,000-acres of territory and only 3,240 (2011) enrolled tribal members. I am not sure that the treasurer office has any equivalence with national legislative bodies. Bruxton (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Oklahoma. Bruxton (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi all, I'm going to copy my comments from the talk page below for ease of access. The main reason I think this article should meet WP:NPOL is because I think being an elected official of a federally recognized tribe meets WP:NPOL. I know the policy is silent on tribal governments and their politicians entirely, but they function more similar to a state government than a local government so I think it's reasonable to argue that the policy should include tribal elected officials. The treasurer office is part of the legislative body of the Quapaw Nations government. I'd also like to repeat I think it's a misreading of WP:NPOL to cite the size of the government's jurisdiction or population as a reason its de-facto unnotable.--TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:WP:NPOL is in favor of including "Politicians ... 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." In the United States, federally recognized tribes often function in roles equivalent to state governments (having 3 branches of gov, exercising civil and criminal jurisdiction over territory, being elected democratically by voters) and their elected politicians should fall under "similar systems of government." Given that, I think Barker actually meets WP:NPOL. He's an elected official of the Quapaw Nation and that should meet WP:NPOL. Additionally, the Quapaw Nation has 6 people in their category, Category:Quapaw, expanding coverage is appropriate. His page is of similar length and source quality of other tribal politicians (see Milton Bluehouse Sr.). Category:Navajo Nation politicians has categories for Tribal Councilors and judges, similar coverage for other tribal nations should be in line with wiki guidelines.--TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Edit: added signature later, original comment 04:29, 23 July 2022‎[reply]
- Comment:I wouldn't go as far to argue they are equivalent of the United States federal government, but for WP:NPOL purposes I think they're the equivalent of state/provincial office. Focusing on the size of the tribe by population or territory I think is a mistake for WP:NPOL application since there are countries smaller than the Quapaw Nation (see Niue and Vatican City). We also don't enforce size requirements for states- Wyoming has 9,000 voters in each state house district, but elected officials to the Wyoming House of Representatives still meet WP:NPOL (This article has more sourcing and content than say Jim Roscoe of Wyoming). The logic of why WP:NPOL applies to all state elected officials should be the same for tribal governments. Especially since they are sovereign nations with jurisdiction, branches of government, and territory. Expanding the Quapaw Nation's coverage on wikipedia is also probably good post McGirt v. Oklahoma, since the tribe is now exercising criminal jurisdiction again in its reservation. Additionally, federal provisions like Treatment as States (TAS) provisions mean that tribal officials like Barker get to write environmental policy usually reserved to state or federal governments. Wiki articles on not just Barker, but tribal elected officials in the United States should meet WP:NPOL in the same way state elected officials do. I totally understand the skepticism given his recent run for office which does not meet WP:NPOL, but I hope you WP:GOODFAITH and understand the creation of this article is motivated not by his recent run for office, but because he is a tribal elected official in Oklahoma and I'm trying to expand coverage of tribal governments as part of the Oklahoma wiki project. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the community has consistently interpreted WP:NPOL to include tribal officials (see Four Guns (judge closed as keep) and Charlotte Hallmark closed as redirect). I do not doubt the logic that TulsaPoliticalFan describes. With that being said, WP:NPOL is premised upon the fact that there is WP:V coverage about elected national and statewide legislators and officials. I cannot begin to assert that all tribal councilmembers meet WP:GNG, nor could I suggest that all principal leaders/chiefs would meet GNG. I do think there is enough coverage to describe the government of most tribal nations and include the list of officials who held offices in those nations (see Supreme Court of the Navajo Nation). --Enos733 (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing both of these previous AfDs. While the editors don't mention it in Charlotte Hallmark's RfD, I think it's interesting and worth noting that they were a state recognized tribal politician and not a federally recognized tribal official. Editors in the Four Guns AfD noted that they were a high ranking politician in a federally recognized tribe who had treaties with the United States as a sovereign nation. I don't want to be misconstrued as implying state recognized tribal officials don't meet WP:NPOL, I don't think I have an opinion on that right now. However, I do think federally recognized tribal officials do meet WP:NPOL and the conclusion of the Four Guns AfD seems to support that conclusion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per TulsaPoliticsFan. We need a more thorough discussion on how NPOL should apply to tribal officials, but let's err on the side of presuming notability for now. Happy to revist if consensus develops otherwise in re NPOL. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I fully agree with Presidentman about erring on the side of presumed notability until a consensus can be reached regarding how WP:NPOL should be applied to tribal officials. For the time being, the well-formulated points made by TulsaPoliticsFan make a reasonable case for keeping the article intact. Sal2100 (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an elected official of a sovereign tribe. GregJackP Boomer! 17:50, 6 August 2022 (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.