Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Bortz: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:04, 21 July 2011

Chris Bortz

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

being a member of Cincinnati City Council since 2005 does not seem to confer notability? Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--actually, it does. See WP:POLITICIAN #2, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Bortz easily passes this test--do a google news search on "Chris Bortz Cincinnati" and there are plenty of reliable sources. I'll try to add some references now, but even without them, this calls for a cleanup tag, not a deletion. Meelar (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--I've significantly updated the article and added several citations to reliable sources. Meelar (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adequate sources are showing in the piece. The subject's minor party ties make him rather more noteworthy than your run of the mill city councilor, but that's icing on a big-enough cake. Carrite (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order to make a valid argument for deletion under WP:POLITICIAN, one would have to assert that Cincinatti is not a "major metropolitan city". It seems to me that this is a tough argument to make. I suggest that the nominator, who I am sure was acting in good faith, read the relevant and applicable notability guidelines before making further AfD nominations. Cullen328 (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read WP:POLITICIAN I didn't think he qualified as "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." but I'm happy for it to remain if he qualifies under "major metropolitan city" Teapotgeorge^Talk 07:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HOTTIE. Voyager640 (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 *'''Keep''' In order to make a valid argument for deletion under [[WP:POLITICIAN]], one would have to assert that [[Cincinatti]] is not a "major metropolitan city".  It seems to me that this is a tough argument to make.  I suggest that the nominator, who I am sure was acting in good faith, read  the relevant and applicable notability guidelines before making further AfD nominations. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 06:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 :I did read [[WP:POLITICIAN]] I didn't think he qualified as  "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." but I'm happy for it to remain if he qualifies under "major metropolitan city" <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''<font color="Black">[[User:Teapotgeorge|Teapot]]</font>'''<font color="silver">[[User:Teapotgeorge|george]]</font></span>[[User talk:Teapotgeorge|<sup><font color="blue">Talk</font></sup>]] 07:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' per [[WP:HOTTIE]]. [[User:Voyager640|Voyager640]] ([[User talk:Voyager640|talk]]) 14:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)