- 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 07:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Darryl Jones (Pittsburgh)
- Darryl Jones (Pittsburgh) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual. Zackmann08 ( talk) 05:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Why? Please read AfD wikipedia policies, unsubstantiated, unexplained comments here like you gave aren't useful/counted. This forum is for a dialogue discussion, if you wish to nominate for AfD then be prepared to explain, substantiate for a dialogue discussion with editors who may disagree with you. I await the required explanation of this AfD, also it's not a vote of confidence that after months on the articles talk page & failed speedy deletion attempts you haven't once tried discussing your thoughts on the article's talk page. So why? Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 05:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Plenty of third-party coverage from various reputable news sources. -- Non-Dropframe talk 07:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete; fails WP:GNG. Only article where he was the subject was standard announcement that the city had hired a new chief —Мандичка YO 😜 08:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- First thank you for the detailed explanation. However if that standard applies then there are
hundreds ofarticles on wikipedia where the only article(s) are "standard announcements" of "new" albums, "new" shows, "new" premiers etc. I understand the valid desire for more and detailed sources but just because a subject doesn't have the well-paid publicity agents & pr firms of a Sony film or reality tv star doesn't mean its not a notable subject for an encyclopedia, reliable sources are a must but let's not allow Wikipedia to simply be a conduit of pr firms buying google hits & SEO and thus oh look it has RSs concerning that the subject is indeed notable for being notable and thus notable. Big-city, long serving Fire Chiefs and say corporate proxy services are very notable to our everyday lives, much more so then "encyclopedia" articles on for instance a Canadian kid named Justin with a multi-million publicity budget etc. There are very serious people in the world that know topics of who runs major city fire crews and who to call if you are conducting a vote on a hostile corporate takeover who really would question why encyclopedias devote so much time and resources to manufactured famous-for-being-famous items. In summary I look at quality of RSs over number/topic, too often RSs are simply bought like a jug of milk by those seeking notability, as an encyclopedia we can't let that be a deciding factor but just one of many. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 08:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)- @
Marketdiamond: If you come across any article where the only source is a basic announcement, please submit it to AfD (assuming your search turns up nothing else to support the article); if you don't want to do that much work, tag for lack of notability. As you said, there are hundreds and we need people's help to catch them. FYI subjects are evaluated based on notability criteria, not fame, popularity or media mentions.
—Мандичка
YO 😜 09:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I let your "only source" comment slide before because I get your greater idea, I'd contest that Jones is the subject of most of the 4 sources. I'd rather come across any article & improve it for the good of the encyclopedia while working with editors in a constructive fashion on the article's talk page similar to how you have been kind enough to elaborate & answer here, we do need people's help to improve what I see as notable articles. I'd prefer not to tag or AfD articles where MadAve/Hollywood Blvd. publicists have bought themselves an army of easily impressionable minds that...well you get my greater idea here. I stand on my above analysis, I'm not relying on the person on MTV when my neighborhood is in danger despite them passing consensus wikipedia notability but you're right there is a distinct dearth of sources that don't page one splash announce for that type. This is an overall impression so I won't take us off topic, I look forward to further discussion of explained substantiated factors related to Jones. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 09:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Also
[1] 8:56 to 9:32, I retracted it 36 min prior out of respect for the project, but somedays I do honestly wonder lately.
Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 10:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're talking about with that diff - it just shows the addition of my comment, nor do I know what you're talking about by letting my "only source" comment slide. Jones is the subject of the article about his appointment; the second article is about the mayor "shaking up" the staff by promoting/demoting multiple people; third ref is not even an article but a news brief of five sentences about him and someone else; and the fourth one is a graduation announcement. These do not satisfy
WP:BASIC, which requires significant coverage. Public officials/city employees such as fire chiefs, police chiefs, mayors, city council members, county sheriff, judges, and postmaster etc. are not considered inherently notable, which means that having this job is not seen as a special indicator of significance. "I'm not relying on the person on MTV when my neighborhood is in danger" sounds like a pretty solid policy; thanks for sharing.
—Мандичка
YO 😜 11:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Should've been 2 [2] [3], it was struck prior & I haven't proposed policy here, but it would be nice. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 12:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're talking about with that diff - it just shows the addition of my comment, nor do I know what you're talking about by letting my "only source" comment slide. Jones is the subject of the article about his appointment; the second article is about the mayor "shaking up" the staff by promoting/demoting multiple people; third ref is not even an article but a news brief of five sentences about him and someone else; and the fourth one is a graduation announcement. These do not satisfy
WP:BASIC, which requires significant coverage. Public officials/city employees such as fire chiefs, police chiefs, mayors, city council members, county sheriff, judges, and postmaster etc. are not considered inherently notable, which means that having this job is not seen as a special indicator of significance. "I'm not relying on the person on MTV when my neighborhood is in danger" sounds like a pretty solid policy; thanks for sharing.
—Мандичка
YO 😜 11:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- @
Marketdiamond: If you come across any article where the only source is a basic announcement, please submit it to AfD (assuming your search turns up nothing else to support the article); if you don't want to do that much work, tag for lack of notability. As you said, there are hundreds and we need people's help to catch them. FYI subjects are evaluated based on notability criteria, not fame, popularity or media mentions.
—Мандичка
YO 😜 09:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- First thank you for the detailed explanation. However if that standard applies then there are
- Keep, a big-city, long-serving fire chief should be notable for an encyclopedia, the better the fire chief is the more the fire chief won't be in the news, for comparison there was a police chief in Pittsburgh that has tons of national RSs because he went to prison, so I caution on ways notability is measured, I can understand some thinking more RSs should be found.
- Also, I repeat my concerns [4] if this AfD is even valid, given the zero talk page interaction and prior attempts by the nominating editor that were quickly dismissed with explanations of reasons by multiple editors [5] and [6]. After months I still await any explanation with reasons (none at talk page [7], AfD, etc.) by the nominating editor. To me that is fundamental in any AfD, an explanation of why this was proposed after being dismissed with reasons given multiple times by multiple editors, AfD policy requires it so I question this entire thread. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 12:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - What coverage exists in reliable sources is both local and routine ("he was hired", "he was promoted", etc..etc... Fire Chiefs of cities, even large ones, are not presumed notable based on their status, tenure, or how much one likes him; it has to be sufficiently proven that the individual satisfies WP:N. This person does not. Tarc ( talk) 14:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Fair disclosure: I wandered in from the ArbCom request The claims put forth of passing GNG are weak at best. The leader of a 630 person fire "district" does not inspire confidence. Reading the GNG we have...
- Significant coverage: Fail as the article is barely a stub
- Reliable: Neutral, the assertions made are verifyable, but do not contribute to the notability of the Bio.
- Sources: The sources mention the subject in passing or very briefly, not what we need for WP:RS.
- Independent of the subject: Sources are also effectively police blotter/Press releases so not contributing to the cause
- Presumed: Calling the question of the Biography's notability tosses the Presumed clause as this more in-depth discussion clearly indicates that independent editors do not see the justification for inclusion.
- For these reasons, the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that Deletion (with no objection to converting it to a
draftspace article to be passed out via a established procedure/ruberic such as
Articles for Creation). Anything else shows a personal interest or bias in wanting to keep the content.
Hasteur (
talk) 20:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hasteur: "Anything else shows a personal interest or bias in wanting to keep the content." I don't understand this, am I being accused of violations? I wouldn't think except you prefaced with "Anything else", which would exclude "Anything else" other than a check in my name (directly or indirectly). Asking sincerely, I've been unsubstantiatedly accused the last week so you can understand how the preface makes it sound like there is no other reason but potential policy vio "personal interest or bias" for my above vote. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 05:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Local officials at this level (heads of urban executive departments, city council people, et al.) invariably fail notability requirements unless they have a national profile. BMK ( talk) 02:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- 'delete There was an investigation on (unsupported) charges of favoring bids by a former employer re: firetruck purchases [8], [9], [10] He was cleared of all charges. And some hiring disputes [11] but really nothing that profiles or focuses on him. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 07:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Darryl Jones (Pittsburgh)
- Darryl Jones (Pittsburgh) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual. Zackmann08 ( talk) 05:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Why? Please read AfD wikipedia policies, unsubstantiated, unexplained comments here like you gave aren't useful/counted. This forum is for a dialogue discussion, if you wish to nominate for AfD then be prepared to explain, substantiate for a dialogue discussion with editors who may disagree with you. I await the required explanation of this AfD, also it's not a vote of confidence that after months on the articles talk page & failed speedy deletion attempts you haven't once tried discussing your thoughts on the article's talk page. So why? Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 05:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Plenty of third-party coverage from various reputable news sources. -- Non-Dropframe talk 07:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete; fails WP:GNG. Only article where he was the subject was standard announcement that the city had hired a new chief —Мандичка YO 😜 08:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- First thank you for the detailed explanation. However if that standard applies then there are
hundreds ofarticles on wikipedia where the only article(s) are "standard announcements" of "new" albums, "new" shows, "new" premiers etc. I understand the valid desire for more and detailed sources but just because a subject doesn't have the well-paid publicity agents & pr firms of a Sony film or reality tv star doesn't mean its not a notable subject for an encyclopedia, reliable sources are a must but let's not allow Wikipedia to simply be a conduit of pr firms buying google hits & SEO and thus oh look it has RSs concerning that the subject is indeed notable for being notable and thus notable. Big-city, long serving Fire Chiefs and say corporate proxy services are very notable to our everyday lives, much more so then "encyclopedia" articles on for instance a Canadian kid named Justin with a multi-million publicity budget etc. There are very serious people in the world that know topics of who runs major city fire crews and who to call if you are conducting a vote on a hostile corporate takeover who really would question why encyclopedias devote so much time and resources to manufactured famous-for-being-famous items. In summary I look at quality of RSs over number/topic, too often RSs are simply bought like a jug of milk by those seeking notability, as an encyclopedia we can't let that be a deciding factor but just one of many. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 08:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)- @
Marketdiamond: If you come across any article where the only source is a basic announcement, please submit it to AfD (assuming your search turns up nothing else to support the article); if you don't want to do that much work, tag for lack of notability. As you said, there are hundreds and we need people's help to catch them. FYI subjects are evaluated based on notability criteria, not fame, popularity or media mentions.
—Мандичка
YO 😜 09:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I let your "only source" comment slide before because I get your greater idea, I'd contest that Jones is the subject of most of the 4 sources. I'd rather come across any article & improve it for the good of the encyclopedia while working with editors in a constructive fashion on the article's talk page similar to how you have been kind enough to elaborate & answer here, we do need people's help to improve what I see as notable articles. I'd prefer not to tag or AfD articles where MadAve/Hollywood Blvd. publicists have bought themselves an army of easily impressionable minds that...well you get my greater idea here. I stand on my above analysis, I'm not relying on the person on MTV when my neighborhood is in danger despite them passing consensus wikipedia notability but you're right there is a distinct dearth of sources that don't page one splash announce for that type. This is an overall impression so I won't take us off topic, I look forward to further discussion of explained substantiated factors related to Jones. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 09:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Also
[1] 8:56 to 9:32, I retracted it 36 min prior out of respect for the project, but somedays I do honestly wonder lately.
Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 10:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're talking about with that diff - it just shows the addition of my comment, nor do I know what you're talking about by letting my "only source" comment slide. Jones is the subject of the article about his appointment; the second article is about the mayor "shaking up" the staff by promoting/demoting multiple people; third ref is not even an article but a news brief of five sentences about him and someone else; and the fourth one is a graduation announcement. These do not satisfy
WP:BASIC, which requires significant coverage. Public officials/city employees such as fire chiefs, police chiefs, mayors, city council members, county sheriff, judges, and postmaster etc. are not considered inherently notable, which means that having this job is not seen as a special indicator of significance. "I'm not relying on the person on MTV when my neighborhood is in danger" sounds like a pretty solid policy; thanks for sharing.
—Мандичка
YO 😜 11:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Should've been 2 [2] [3], it was struck prior & I haven't proposed policy here, but it would be nice. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 12:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're talking about with that diff - it just shows the addition of my comment, nor do I know what you're talking about by letting my "only source" comment slide. Jones is the subject of the article about his appointment; the second article is about the mayor "shaking up" the staff by promoting/demoting multiple people; third ref is not even an article but a news brief of five sentences about him and someone else; and the fourth one is a graduation announcement. These do not satisfy
WP:BASIC, which requires significant coverage. Public officials/city employees such as fire chiefs, police chiefs, mayors, city council members, county sheriff, judges, and postmaster etc. are not considered inherently notable, which means that having this job is not seen as a special indicator of significance. "I'm not relying on the person on MTV when my neighborhood is in danger" sounds like a pretty solid policy; thanks for sharing.
—Мандичка
YO 😜 11:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- @
Marketdiamond: If you come across any article where the only source is a basic announcement, please submit it to AfD (assuming your search turns up nothing else to support the article); if you don't want to do that much work, tag for lack of notability. As you said, there are hundreds and we need people's help to catch them. FYI subjects are evaluated based on notability criteria, not fame, popularity or media mentions.
—Мандичка
YO 😜 09:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- First thank you for the detailed explanation. However if that standard applies then there are
- Keep, a big-city, long-serving fire chief should be notable for an encyclopedia, the better the fire chief is the more the fire chief won't be in the news, for comparison there was a police chief in Pittsburgh that has tons of national RSs because he went to prison, so I caution on ways notability is measured, I can understand some thinking more RSs should be found.
- Also, I repeat my concerns [4] if this AfD is even valid, given the zero talk page interaction and prior attempts by the nominating editor that were quickly dismissed with explanations of reasons by multiple editors [5] and [6]. After months I still await any explanation with reasons (none at talk page [7], AfD, etc.) by the nominating editor. To me that is fundamental in any AfD, an explanation of why this was proposed after being dismissed with reasons given multiple times by multiple editors, AfD policy requires it so I question this entire thread. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 12:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - What coverage exists in reliable sources is both local and routine ("he was hired", "he was promoted", etc..etc... Fire Chiefs of cities, even large ones, are not presumed notable based on their status, tenure, or how much one likes him; it has to be sufficiently proven that the individual satisfies WP:N. This person does not. Tarc ( talk) 14:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Fair disclosure: I wandered in from the ArbCom request The claims put forth of passing GNG are weak at best. The leader of a 630 person fire "district" does not inspire confidence. Reading the GNG we have...
- Significant coverage: Fail as the article is barely a stub
- Reliable: Neutral, the assertions made are verifyable, but do not contribute to the notability of the Bio.
- Sources: The sources mention the subject in passing or very briefly, not what we need for WP:RS.
- Independent of the subject: Sources are also effectively police blotter/Press releases so not contributing to the cause
- Presumed: Calling the question of the Biography's notability tosses the Presumed clause as this more in-depth discussion clearly indicates that independent editors do not see the justification for inclusion.
- For these reasons, the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that Deletion (with no objection to converting it to a
draftspace article to be passed out via a established procedure/ruberic such as
Articles for Creation). Anything else shows a personal interest or bias in wanting to keep the content.
Hasteur (
talk) 20:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hasteur: "Anything else shows a personal interest or bias in wanting to keep the content." I don't understand this, am I being accused of violations? I wouldn't think except you prefaced with "Anything else", which would exclude "Anything else" other than a check in my name (directly or indirectly). Asking sincerely, I've been unsubstantiatedly accused the last week so you can understand how the preface makes it sound like there is no other reason but potential policy vio "personal interest or bias" for my above vote. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 05:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Local officials at this level (heads of urban executive departments, city council people, et al.) invariably fail notability requirements unless they have a national profile. BMK ( talk) 02:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- 'delete There was an investigation on (unsupported) charges of favoring bids by a former employer re: firetruck purchases [8], [9], [10] He was cleared of all charges. And some hiring disputes [11] but really nothing that profiles or focuses on him. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.