Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Demings (2nd nomination)
- 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. Editors are reminded that while someone's position may not be a "they're notable because they're _____" pass, if they meet GNG then that is irrelevant, and it seems that we have enough here to meet that, between occasional national coverage and persistent local. The Bushranger One ping only 04:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Jerry Demings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a county sheriff, written differently enough from the first version to not qualify for immediate G4 speedy but not really making a stronger case for notability. County sheriff is not a level of office that hands its holders an automatic notability pass just for existing -- but this is not referenced to the depth and breadth of coverage needed to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Of the ten sources here, seven are WP:ROUTINE election-related coverage, including campaign brochures and raw tables of election results, that any county sheriff anywhere could always show because election-related coverage always exists; one more is a primary source that cannot assist notability at all; and one is far more about his wife than him. There's literally only one source here that speaks to his potential notability by being about him in any non-trivial and non-routine and non-primary and non-namechecky way, but one source isn't enough to pass WP:GNG all by itself. To qualify for an article, a county sheriff has to be demonstrably more notable than most other county sheriffs by virtue of being able to show more and wider press coverage than most other county sheriffs could show, but that's not what the sourcing here is demonstrating. And no, he doesn't inherit notability just because his wife's in Congress now, either. Bearcat (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable for stand alone article; his position and "life" does not rise to a level of notability per GNG. Could be mentioned in his wife's article, but otherwise trivial. Kierzek (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Former chief of police of Orlando Police Department, a large department with over 700 officers, and currently heads an even larger sheriff's department with over 2,400 employees. I think that alone makes him notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- The notability test for a police chief is "how much reliable source coverage does he have or not have in media?", not "how many people happen to have him as their boss?" Bearcat (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- I would have said the notability criteria for such a senior figure are governed by WP:COMMONSENSE, but there you go... -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- In an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, which as a direct result of that has tremendous problems with people trying to misuse us as a public relations platform or as a forum for POV opinioneering or rumour-mongering about our article subjects, insisting on proper sourceability is the common sense position. There's nothing remotely "common sense" about giving county sheriffs (or anybody else, for that matter) an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist — the common sense position does require legitimate sources. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- And the article does have legitimate sources. He clearly holds and held the posts claimed. You're arguing they're not sufficient for notability; I'm arguing they are. Please don't characterise this as anything other than what it is: a notability dispute, not a sourcing dispute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- In an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, which as a direct result of that has tremendous problems with people trying to misuse us as a public relations platform or as a forum for POV opinioneering or rumour-mongering about our article subjects, insisting on proper sourceability is the common sense position. There's nothing remotely "common sense" about giving county sheriffs (or anybody else, for that matter) an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist — the common sense position does require legitimate sources. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- I would have said the notability criteria for such a senior figure are governed by WP:COMMONSENSE, but there you go... -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- The notability test for a police chief is "how much reliable source coverage does he have or not have in media?", not "how many people happen to have him as their boss?" Bearcat (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:BASIC as has not received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". He does not inherit notability from his wife nor his role. AusLondonder (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Odd that minor politicians do then! We really do continue to have double standards on Wikipedia. He doesn't "inherit" notability from his role; he is notable because of his senior role. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, minor politicians (city councillors, school board trustees, small-town mayors, etc.) don't "inherit" anything either — they get deleted if they can't be reliably sourced as the subject of an unusual volume of press coverage that marks them out as more notable than the norm for their level of prominence. State and federal legislators, on the other hand, do not hold "minor" roles — they hold roles that make them significantly more prominent than small-town mayors or school board trustees, and even if their articles are sometimes inadequate in their existing form, they're of much more than purely local interest and are always improvable. There's no equivalency to be drawn here between a county sheriff and a state or federal legislator: county sheriff is a local office, not a state or federal one, so the keepability test is not passed just because a few sources exist, because a few sources always exist for all county sheriffs. The notability test for local offices is "significantly more notable than the norm", not "automatically included just because the same purely local sources exist for him that would exist for anybody else at that level too". Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Did I say municipal politicians? I was referring to every single member of a national or sub-national legislature. Many of whom are indeed "minor politicians" and are far less significant than the chief of two major police agencies (and are, frankly, often less well-known). Yet we give them a free pass just because of the post they hold, so the implication that we don't ever do this is clear piffle. And please stop referring to "inheriting". Nobody is saying anybody inherits anything. "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects." Nope, that doesn't apply. It would apply if I was saying he was notable because of his wife (which I'm certainly not); it does not apply if I say he is notable because of his senior post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- State or federal legislators are most certainly not "minor" politicians by any rational or sane measure — they may not all be as famous as Donald Trump or Justin Trudeau or Angela Merkel, but state and federal legislatures are important political bodies whose decisions have profound impacts on society and history and economics. It's the people in the US Congress, for example, who have ultimate control over whether Donald Trump will get his agenda passed or not, not his own will; it was a vote of confidence in the legislature, not a clear-cut victory for either party in the election, that decided who the new premier of British Columbia is; and it's the Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom who have control of how long Theresa May is or isn't going to get to keep her job. So they have a lot of control over the political agenda, which makes them significantly more than "minor" figures even if they're not all internationally famous. There's an important public service at stake in having information about legislators, because they matter to a broad readership — people need to know exactly who's voting on important issues, like whether they get to have health insurance or not, whether their taxes are going up or down, and on and so forth. Politicians at the state or federal levels are exactly the kind of topic any encyclopedia worth its salt would be expected to have articles about; county sheriffs are not, save rare exceptions on the order of Joe Arpaio who have an unusual volume of nationalized coverage. Bearcat (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Of course many of them are minor politicians. Many of them will never do anything significant in their entire careers apart from turn up and vote occasionally. And this was often even more the case in the past and also with "legislatures" in totalitarian states which are just rubber-stamping bodies, yet we still give all of them a free pass. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- "Apart from turn up and vote on important legislation which matters, thereby making it critically important for every American to have access to neutral and verifiable information about everybody who's voting on their financial and social futures." FTFY, HTH, HAND. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Of course many of them are minor politicians. Many of them will never do anything significant in their entire careers apart from turn up and vote occasionally. And this was often even more the case in the past and also with "legislatures" in totalitarian states which are just rubber-stamping bodies, yet we still give all of them a free pass. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- State or federal legislators are most certainly not "minor" politicians by any rational or sane measure — they may not all be as famous as Donald Trump or Justin Trudeau or Angela Merkel, but state and federal legislatures are important political bodies whose decisions have profound impacts on society and history and economics. It's the people in the US Congress, for example, who have ultimate control over whether Donald Trump will get his agenda passed or not, not his own will; it was a vote of confidence in the legislature, not a clear-cut victory for either party in the election, that decided who the new premier of British Columbia is; and it's the Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom who have control of how long Theresa May is or isn't going to get to keep her job. So they have a lot of control over the political agenda, which makes them significantly more than "minor" figures even if they're not all internationally famous. There's an important public service at stake in having information about legislators, because they matter to a broad readership — people need to know exactly who's voting on important issues, like whether they get to have health insurance or not, whether their taxes are going up or down, and on and so forth. Politicians at the state or federal levels are exactly the kind of topic any encyclopedia worth its salt would be expected to have articles about; county sheriffs are not, save rare exceptions on the order of Joe Arpaio who have an unusual volume of nationalized coverage. Bearcat (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Did I say municipal politicians? I was referring to every single member of a national or sub-national legislature. Many of whom are indeed "minor politicians" and are far less significant than the chief of two major police agencies (and are, frankly, often less well-known). Yet we give them a free pass just because of the post they hold, so the implication that we don't ever do this is clear piffle. And please stop referring to "inheriting". Nobody is saying anybody inherits anything. "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects." Nope, that doesn't apply. It would apply if I was saying he was notable because of his wife (which I'm certainly not); it does not apply if I say he is notable because of his senior post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, minor politicians (city councillors, school board trustees, small-town mayors, etc.) don't "inherit" anything either — they get deleted if they can't be reliably sourced as the subject of an unusual volume of press coverage that marks them out as more notable than the norm for their level of prominence. State and federal legislators, on the other hand, do not hold "minor" roles — they hold roles that make them significantly more prominent than small-town mayors or school board trustees, and even if their articles are sometimes inadequate in their existing form, they're of much more than purely local interest and are always improvable. There's no equivalency to be drawn here between a county sheriff and a state or federal legislator: county sheriff is a local office, not a state or federal one, so the keepability test is not passed just because a few sources exist, because a few sources always exist for all county sheriffs. The notability test for local offices is "significantly more notable than the norm", not "automatically included just because the same purely local sources exist for him that would exist for anybody else at that level too". Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep WP:HEY, coverage of unique aspects of his career (first black police chief in Orlando) goes back to 1998; and the details of the bio are reliably sourced. But it's the coverage of the fact that when he ran for and won the election for Sheriff (of a big deal County, because: Orlando), his wife was Police Chief of Orlando that brought non-ROUEINE coverage. Also, special attention is drwan becase he was the first black police chief in Orlando, first black Sheriff in Orange County, and the first black head of the Florida sheriffs association - more can be added about these themes, which have attracted coverage. The fact that his wife os now a congresswoman also makes people interested in him, But it was the unusual married-couple-head-overlapping-police-agencies got coverage that goes well beyond ROUTINE, here's a sampling of what's out there: Jerry and Val Demings; Married couple lead area policing; Jerry and Val Demings are sheriff and police chief in the Orlando area. Conflict of interest? No, they say. AP/Los Angeles Times ; Married Cops to Head Next Door Agencies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Plus, that old AfD is deeply unpersuasive: nobody attended and it sounds as though nobody had bothered ot source the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete the coverage does not rise above routine coverage to show true notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been edited extensively by E.M.Gregory since nomination and that bears examination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 00:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Article has been edited extensively by E.M.Gregory since nomination and that bears examination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 00:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Per E.M.Gregory above. There is significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources, including both local and national sources, more than enough to clear general notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per above, as subject is a notable political figure. KingAntenor (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2017 (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.