Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Bloom

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) 21:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Bloom

[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)

Disputed PROD. Written by the article's subject, who is a city councilmember in a community of under 1,000 people and has no other positions of note. The subject has no significant coverage beyond local newspapers and thus fails WP:NPOL. Sounder Bruce 06:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 06:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 06:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 06:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The borough council itself is not notable enough to have its own article; its individual memebers are even less so. The subject himself does not have any other sufficiently notable activities or significant, non-localised coverage; thus, a mention in the table at Houtzdale, Pennsylvania#Government is sufficient. W. Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 07:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the WP:NPOL, that major local political figures who have received significant press coverage outside their specific region, clearly Bloom is not notable outside the city. SunDawn (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete: If the Borough council and this area are not worthy of their own article, I would like to know why Bud George is allowed to remain, as that article has less information and very little citation. Also SunDawn that table has been made a point of contention in itself simply for being there, and if that table should remain, I would happily concede the argument for this page. In addition I would like to thank SounderBruce for finally taking a diplomatic approach to this issue. Zackmanb67 (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)zackmanb67[reply]

Bud George was a state legislator, which is not equivalent to a smalltown city councillor. Our rule is that state legislators are "inherently" notable, which means that they must have articles even if their current state of sourcing is inadequate (for one thing, the question of whether we have actually found and used all of the best sources that a person has is a very separate matter from whether good quality sources exist or not) — but municipal councillors are not inherently notable, which means that in order to make a person notable enough for inclusion here on the basis of having been a municipal councillor per se, you have to show a credible reason why they should be treated as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other municipal councillors. What you cannot do is say that a municipal councillor automatically has to have an article just because a state legislator has one — their notability claims aren't parallel with each other, so they don't have to be treated the same way. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zackmanb67. For AfD discussion it is not good to bring up discussions about other article, per WP:OTHERSTUFF as the argument should be about the article. Though in the case of Bud George as he has been in Pennsylvania House of Representatives he can fulfill The person has been elected or appointed to serve on a given country's legislative body or legislature on a national or subnational level., thus fulfilling the WP:NPOL criterion. SunDawn (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmanb67: You want to address me, not SunDawn. I have not said the area is not worthy of its own article, merely the council. And I have extensively explained to you over here why bringing up Bud George is of no use. W. Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 16:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just for serving on smalltown municipal councils, the fact that some other person with an entirely different notability claim has an article is irrelevant per WP:WAX, and the depth of sourcing shown here (a mixture of primary sources and the routine local coverage that every municipal councillor everywhere is simply expected to have) is not enough to make this smalltown municipal councillor more special than other smalltown municipal councillors. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bearcat I was simply confused by Wikipedia's policy as it does not clarify as deeply as you went. I viewed those policies of notability previous to creating the article, and took what it said as local notability. Thank you for explaining it further, My assumption was that the notability from sources reaching a regional audience was sufficient to be over local. I concede after having read Bearcat description that the article is not of notability. Zackmanb67 (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)zackmanb67[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 20:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small town politician that fails WP:NPOL. --Kbabej (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2021 (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.