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. The double-nomination confused matters, but there is a rough consensus to keep both articles. –  Joe ( talk) 17:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Billy Shreve

Billy Shreve (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, local politician. Rusf10 ( talk) 18:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Also nominating, this one:

Bud Otis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Problematic decision to combine deletion of two individual politicians, each with a with unique career. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

They hold the same damn position. And trust me your behavior is even more problematic.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 06:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

They have had different lives, different careers, and have gotten different amounts of media coverage. Moreover, editors commenting below have written as though addressing the notability of a single individual. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe ( talk) 19:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe ( talk) 19:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Individual has received significant and ongoing coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant: article has 54 citations, of which 51 are independent reliable sources. Ongoing: citations are from the last 12 years. ~ Quacks Like a Duck ( talk) 19:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply

By my count 49 of those citations are from the same local newspaper. The Frederick News-Post is not a major publication. The other two come from the Washington Post. Neither article is about Shreve. The first one is about a vote on a Scientology rehab, it has exactly one quote from Shreve. The second one is about the same rehab center and says Shreve was the only member to vote in favor of the proposal.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 03:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Please stop the genocide of local politican's entries. Subject passes WP:GNG. Ample, robust souring from national publications.22:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)(Comment unsigned by User:Bangabandhu, please remember to sign your comments.) E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete he is a member of a county council and the coverage just does not rise to the level to show that he is fully notable. Local coverage can be found on any politician, we need more than that. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Billy Shreve [NOTE: the name "Billy Shreve" was later added to my opinion; initially it was just keep. See also my opinion of Bud Otis further below. gidonb ( talk) 04:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)] as meeting the WP:GNG. gidonb ( talk) 02:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

How does it meet WP:GNG?-- Rusf10 ( talk) 22:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

We're probably looking at the same articles, just draw different conclusions. gidonb ( talk) 01:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC) reply

For my own edification, would you mind pointing out a couple articles you think pass WP:GNG? SportingFlyer talk 02:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I do not view the Frederick News-Post an invalid source for notability, as some here do. The coverage of this politician in this daily newspaper is nothing short of impressive. There are other sources. For example, I just added an item from the Voice of America in which the first three paragraphs focus on Shreve. The entire article is focused on a project educating against drugs, in which Shreve was the driving force. gidonb ( talk) 03:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC) reply

*Keep Bud Otis, long and significant career, article is already pretty well sourced and my brief exploration of his career brought up lots more material in WP:RS that can be added to improve the article.(I added a little) E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC) withdrawing, discussion is illegitimate because it conflates the careers of two separate individuals. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Nowhere in WP:RS does it say the sources have to be "major." I'd say 54 sources is more than enough to get it over WP:GNG. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:BASIC requires in-depth coverage though. The sources here are really poor because they are mostly about something other than the subject, but happen to have a breif mention or a few quotes from him.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 22:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment This discussion and several recent and present discussions persuades me, as it has persuaded several editors commenting above, that too many editors are applying WP:NPOL without taking a close look at individual careers and available sources. Except with new pages on candidates actively running for office, I recommend tagging pages and leaving the tag in place for a year before taking politicians to AfD. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I strongly disagree - this article is a clear example of a local politician who doesn't pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 05:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. County council is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL — it is a level of office where a person qualifies to have a Wikipedia article only if the sourcing expands far enough beyond the purely local to mark them out as a special case over and above most other county councillors. The sourcing in these articles is not doing that, however — they're referenced entirely to the purely local media coverage that is simply expected to exist for county councillors, and not to any strong evidence that either of them is more notable than everybody else who serves on a county government in the United States. There is no automatic entitlement for politicians at this level of government to have Wikipedia articles, so listing them for deletion does not represent "genocide". If "local media coverage exists and therefore WP:GNG is passed" is enough for these two county councillors, then every county councillor everywhere is equally notable by the same standard, because local media coverage always exists — but Wikipedia has an established consensus that purely local media coverage is not enough to get a county councillor into Wikipedia in and of itself, if the article doesn't demonstrate a credible reason why their notability extends beyond the purely local. Bearcat ( talk) 23:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. This article is source-bombed, but I cannot access many of them because they are behind a password-protected site. What is important: even though there are 55 sources currently on the page, where are the ones that help him become notable? Commissioners debate time commitment? Shreve raises staffing, parking concerns? Population boom feeds construction? They're also all from the same newspaper. The sources that exist are almost all WP:MILL local political minutiae, and the ones I can access - the Washington Post ones - he's only mentioned once or twice. Keep in mind WP:NPOL states: A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. There are at most two sources out of the 55 presented which could satisfy that requirement. SportingFlyer talk 05:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment I just noticed multiple people were nominated in this AfD. I stand by my delete for Shreve and would also like to note Bud Otis, in spite of a number of sources on his page, also fails WP:GNG. None of the articles discuss him outside of his local government position and are all WP:MILL, and the best source is only an editorial. My analogy for these is similar to game coverage a really good high school basketball player: there will be lots of local coverage, and some of it may appear to pass WP:GNG, but neither of these gentlemen have done anything notable apart from serving on a local elections board, and the sourcing shows it. Due to the odd nature of this AfD (I thought it was just for Shreve) I have no problems with any sort of procedural keep, but I strongly believe neither of these articles are fit for Wikipedia based on the available sourcing, and are merely local political cruft. SportingFlyer talk 21:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

@ SportingFlyer:Do not fall for E.M.Gregory's wikilawyers, the nomination complies with WP:MULTIAFD.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 21:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not, I honestly thought this AfD was just for Shreve. SportingFlyer talk 21:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Note to closing editor' I urge that this discussion be aborted. Nom has brought two individual politicians to a single discussion, but editors, (except Bearcat and me,) are discussing it in the singular. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Anyone who is able to read knows there are two articles and WP:MULTIAFD is allowed so stop acting like I'm breaking the rules or something, just to derail the discussion. And if they somehow didn't know, they certainly do now with you bludgeoning.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 18:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, I am familiar with the policy. It states: An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled— nominate it separately. For the avoidance of doubt, bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as "should wikipedia include this type of article". Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy. If you're unsure, don't bundle it. You and I have been involved in recent months in a large number of deletion discussions regarding county- state- and town-level politicians, and we both know that notability varies according to the vagaries of individual careers, even when, as you say above, "They hold the same damn position." E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Okay, so why don't you explain to me how these two men have done anything of significantly different notability over their careers because I don't see it. The only elected position either held was on the same county council (or its predecessor) and I don't see anything even remotely notable about their lives before that. Your objection comes down to nothing more than WP:WIKILAWYERING-- Rusf10 ( talk) 21:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The material in Bud Otis#Professional career, like running a large publishing house. Many sources for those years/jobs can be found under Harold Otis. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep both I am seeing enough reliable coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- RAN ( talk) 18:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Yet another problem with this awkward double nomination is that lists relevant to Otis may not be relevant to Shreve. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

What do either of these have to do with Christianity? SportingFlyer talk 22:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Spent a couple of decades working for a major Christian deniminaiton, off to Russia after glasnost as a missionary and opened churches. Stuff like that. It's er, on the page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

So he's a religious man. His positions were not notable. I question if Review and Herald Publishing Association should even exist, because at a quick glance, it does not meet WP:ORG. Adding this to the Christian del-sort is disingenuous.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 23:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The article on my watchlist seems to be well-sourced, and it meets "importance" and GNG criteria. I am not checking the other one. Why are these bundled? Keep them both then. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Since you just admitted that you didn't even look at the other one, then I guess your keep vote for the second article doesn't count then. How many other articles have you voted keep on without even looking at them?-- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I try to give attention appropriate to the quality of the deletion nomination. :) -- Doncram ( talk) 17:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Obviously, my mistake is giving too much attention to a low-quality vote.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 20:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Otis is certainly notable, while Shreve is arguably so but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. The two should not be nominated on the same page. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 23:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Shreve who has done nothing notable apart from be a county politician (NN) and a politician's campaign manager (NN). Weak keep for Otis, who is NN as a politician, but might be notable as a publisher. The issue is not whether the info is verifiable, but whether the people are notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Procedural keep for Bud Otis. I was surprised to learn after writing my opinion on Billy Shreve that this nomination also includes Bud Otis. I disagree that the nomination of Otis should piggyback on that of Shreve. These are different politicians with different considerations. A closing nominator has said this before me, however that closure was overruled in a deletion review and the AfD was reopened. I have not delved into every claim made in the review and accept that reviewer was entitled to make a decision. Now that s/he did, I'm adding my position on the linkage and the Bud Otis article here. I still want to encourage a separate discussion. The suggestion seems to be that this should be done on the same AfD page?! gidonb ( talk) 04:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Bud Otis. WP:HEYMANN Notability supported by being CEO of the Review and Herald Publishing Association and by his reliably sourced political career before he was elected county commissioner. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Another self-proclaimed HEYMANN.Does anyone still take these seriously? President of a small publishing company is not notable.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 14:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Shreve. Page has INDEPTH coverage of his career, mostly locally sourced, but including New York Times. Plus Washingtonian (magazine) took a deep dive into his pro-development politics in a group with two other pro-development politicians who held a majority on the county council. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC) reply

He does not have coverage in the New York Times, he just has a couple quotes. The article is not about him. Neithier is the Washingtonian article, it just mentions him a few times.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 14:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Do you have to badger everyone who votes keep? Clearly he has a different conception of INDEPTH and GNG. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 22:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Editorofthewiki:- Completely uncalled for. You're accusing me of badgering people? Take a look at how many comments E.M. Gregory has above, starting with the comments he felt he needed to insert out of order at the top of the discussion.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 02:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Honestly, E.M. Gregory kinda is beating a dead horse with regards to the discussion being illegitimate. But you probably should have nominated Bud Otis seperately, since the notability of one may not mean the notability of the other. Just something to keep in mind going forward. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 02:15, 30 May 2018 (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.