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.
Delete. Not inherently notable, no indication of notability apart from her county office; and I see no coverage other the usual mentions any county prosecutor would get.
TJRC (
talk) 20:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Being a district attorney at the county level is not an automatic notability freebie that entitles a person to have an article just because she exists, but the sourcing here isn't helping her pass
WP:GNG for it: there's her
primary source profile on the self-published website of the DA's office, which is not a source that can assist notability at all, and just four pieces of the purely
routine local media coverage that any county DA could simply expect to receive. It takes a lot more than this to get a DA in the wikidoor.
Bearcat (
talk) 07:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have tended to keep DAs of larger counties - especially in this case, she is the chief prosecutor of a larger (1 Million plus) county.
Bearian (
talk) 02:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)reply
The notability standard for county DAs is not a population test, but a sourceability test — and the volume of sourcing here isn't passing it. No size of county hands its DA an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts her from having to pass the sourceability test.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)reply
It's not clear to me that any part of the
WP:POLOUTCOMES essay supports keeping.
TJRC (
talk) 22:33, 6 September 2017 (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.
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.
Delete. Not inherently notable, no indication of notability apart from her county office; and I see no coverage other the usual mentions any county prosecutor would get.
TJRC (
talk) 20:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Being a district attorney at the county level is not an automatic notability freebie that entitles a person to have an article just because she exists, but the sourcing here isn't helping her pass
WP:GNG for it: there's her
primary source profile on the self-published website of the DA's office, which is not a source that can assist notability at all, and just four pieces of the purely
routine local media coverage that any county DA could simply expect to receive. It takes a lot more than this to get a DA in the wikidoor.
Bearcat (
talk) 07:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have tended to keep DAs of larger counties - especially in this case, she is the chief prosecutor of a larger (1 Million plus) county.
Bearian (
talk) 02:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)reply
The notability standard for county DAs is not a population test, but a sourceability test — and the volume of sourcing here isn't passing it. No size of county hands its DA an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts her from having to pass the sourceability test.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)reply
It's not clear to me that any part of the
WP:POLOUTCOMES essay supports keeping.
TJRC (
talk) 22:33, 6 September 2017 (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.