Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Z Stouch

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. Michig (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Z Stouch

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

WP:BLP, with a decidedly advertorial/résumé slant to it, of a local law enforcement officer with no particularly strong claim of encyclopedic notability. Of the six sources here, two are primary source meeting minutes which do not assist in establishing notability per WP:GNG, one is a WP:ROUTINE table of raw election results on the county's website, and the three that are actually to real media coverage aren't about the subject: all three are about criminals, and two of them merely provide glancing namechecks of Stouch's existence while the third doesn't even do that. And for added bonus, this article was "peer reviewed" by the subject himself literally just five minutes after it was created -- which means even the original creator has to have a direct conflict of interest of some kind, because how else could Stouch have known it was here that quickly? (Plus "peer review" isn't about the subject verifying the article's accuracy or not; it's about established Wikipedians verifying the article's conformity with our rules and standards about sourcing and formatting and notability.) None of this is enough to make a township-level law enforcement officer notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An elected law enforcement officer in a township of roughly 10,000 people does not meet WP:POLITICIAN and the references in the article come nowhere near to meeting the General notability guideline, as Bearcat explained. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not even close. There is no defensible rationale for inclusion in any Wikipedia guideline or policy I am aware of, and the reasons for removal are many, as touched upon above by Cullen328 and Bearcat. Marteau (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete politician way below the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW. This is a PR page of a head LEO of a district of about 10,000 residents. We have always deleted articles about small-town sheriffs, and I see no change to that consensus. This badly fails WP:POLITICIAN; this is a run of the mill, local elected official. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2016 (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.