Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Stammel

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Draftify and redirect. I am AGFing the creator that he has a whole word document that includes sources that might get us over the notability barrier, although I share the consensus concerns that Rensselear mayor may never be notable. Dellis12144, how long an article has existed is not a barrier to deletion. Please go through AfC before reinstating this article. At the moment I am protecting the redirect to ensure no out of process creations occur. Star Mississippi 00:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stammel

[edit]

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

Michael Stammel (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)

Small town mayor, meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 15:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dellis12144, the creator of the page, is known for editing and creating articles related to Rensselaer, New York and Rensselaer County. Given that the IP is located in that specific area, it is safe to assume that the user is editing as an IP in an attempt to sway this discussion in some way. KidAd • SPEAK 22:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you tagging me? I did post a comment: since the article is a contender for being improved, it should be moved to draft space. There are plenty of valid sources on the internet for information on Michael Stammel that may be used. There is no reason to delete an article that has many reference sources available even if the subject is a representative of a smaller size community. Dellis12144 (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my comment? I tagged you because I think you logged out of your account to comment in this AfD as an IP. Am I wrong? Is that IP not you pretending to be someone else? KidAd • SPEAK 00:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KidAd my account stays logged in 24 hours a day. Not sure how I could comment as someone else and not know. Why are you so adamant about deleting the article when many updates have been made to it? I've added more information as well as many more sources for the information. You state that the subject is not notable. I do want to let you know that there are many other local level politicians listed on Wikipedia as well. With valid resources, there is no reason they shouldn't be. If you'd like, I can send you a word document with every single news story I can find on Mr. Stammel online to prove that he is indeed notable. Dellis12144 (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing notable found in third party sources. If he was, I'd expect to find something in the New York Times, being a paper of record for the state; only one hit on a senator giving a tour of his district that just mentions the name. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you like, I could provide you with an entire word document of every article there is online about Michael Stammel. Just because he is not a state level politician doesn't mean he isn't notable. He is notable in the local community and the county of Rensselaer. Dellis12144 (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I don't see any reason not to, if the article creator requests it. Mlb96 (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank You. Spent a lot of time editing it and adding sources. Dellis12144 (talk) (contribs) 13:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't draftify lack of notability cannot be fixed by editing, so why are we even talking about draftifying the article? Alternately, I also support redirect to List of mayors of Rensselaer, New York. (t · c) buidhe 19:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article creator has asserted that the individual is notable. Even if we cannot find anything to suggest that he is notable right now, there is no downside to giving the article creator a few more months to find coverage. If coverage does end up being found, then deleting the article entirely will just make more work for the article creator when they recreate it. And if coverage isn't found, then the article will languish in draft space until being auto-deleted. Draftifying seems like a win-win. Mlb96 (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mayor of a place with under 10,000 people immediately adjacent to a much larger and more noticed city. This is not a position where the holder is even remotely likely to be notable. I have to admit I am unsure why we have a whole article on the position, instead of a more general article on the government of the city or good coverage of both in the article on the city. I have to say in general Wikipedia artilces on cities have sub-standard coverage of their government. Far too few do we even say if they have a council-manage, council-mayor, city commission or other type of government, and even less often do we discuss the change of such government over time. Flooding Wikipedia with articles on places that were actually just a well or a mine has left us with our articles on actual cities often being sub-standard. Then we turn around and flood it with bios on non-notable mayors, instead of creating useful text on thestructure of government.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it hurt to have an article with valid resources published on Wikipedia? He may not be a state or federal level government official but he is indeed notable in the local community as well as the county. Dellis12144 (talk) (contribs) 15:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is that this article has been on Wikipedia for over a year until someone decided to redirect it. A lot of updates have been made to the article. Dellis12144 (talk) (contribs) 16:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sourcing is all hyper local. It is just not sustainable to have articles on every mayor of a place over 5,000 people, especially when it is a place that is very much in the shadow of much larger communities. Wikipedia has articles exist for over 15 years that people are just now getting around to reviewing. The fact that an article has "existed over a year" in Wikipedia terms means that it is very young. Due to the ease with which articles can be created on Wikipedia, the fact that an article exists is not at all a sign in any way shape mean or form that it ought to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That really doesn't answer my concern. I feel that there is absolutely no regard from those who want the article deleted about the amount of time placed in to creating the article. It just discourages editors from wanting to participate further in helping to improve Wikipedia if they are only doing so to be told their content is not good enough. Dellis12144 (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Local politician, local coverage which is mostly routine coverage of city activities. @Dellis12144: Two points: 1) If the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, then it does not matter how many hours went into creating it. I've seen articles deleted here for which the hours spent in their creation and maintenance were orders of magnitude greater than this one, and where the AfD discussion was considerably less one-sided. 2) It's not a good look and not helpful to your case to challenge every single comment which disagrees with yours. You've made your case--I advise not bludgeoning it further. --Finngall talk 19:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue is that nobody is considering the comments from those who say Draftify. The only argument from those who want it deleted is notoriety. Those wanted it deleted have no other argument. You can say some politician is notable and I may not have even heard of that person before so I do not consider them notable. I think that is the issue in this case that people are ignoring and I don't feel that it is a fair process. Dellis12144 (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,A small town mayor does not count as notable. Alex-h (talk) 17:58, 17 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Stammel&oldid=1078520467"