Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob O'Dekirk

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. Given recent improvements which swung several former delete !votes, I'm finding that there's at least a narrow consensus to keep here. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob O'Dekirk

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

Has only one reference, which is not a WP:RS (patch.com). Lacks notability or context. Lacks content. GetSomeUtah (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll concede the article is poor. I sorta lost interest, BUT O'Dekirk, as the Mayor of a city of 100,000+ meets notability. Have you tried improving it and not found sources?Mpen320 (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 100,000+ doesn't guarantee a notability or a Wikipedia article. See Mayor Richard Irvin of Aurora, Illinois. Aurora is the second-largest, according to the infobox on O'Dekirk's page. Joliet comes in at #4. This article was flagged for the Wikipedia community some time ago, and no one seems to have interest in improving it, and that's why it's being nominated for deletion. GetSomeUtah (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete O'Dekirk fails WP:NPOL. He has not received "significant press coverage" which is a requirement for "major local political figures" (and I'd even question if O'Dekirk counts as a "major" political figure given there are nearly 500 cities of 100,000+ in India). NPOL states that "Just being an elected local official...does not guarantee notability." AusLondonder (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - fails WP:SIGCOV. The few news articles I found on the Google are routine coverage of his run for mayor and mundane coverage of local municipal affairs. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after Yngvadottir's excellent work on the article. I'm still not really sure that O'Dekirk meets the notability threshold as (I think) all of these sources are routine local politics coverage, but there's enough of that to suggest passing WP:NOTTEMPORARY. And I suppose WP:OSE: most mayors of American cities of this size have articles, and with respect to AusLondonder, the number of cities of this size in India is completely irrelevant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Keep per sourcing improvements. Joliet is certainly a large enough city that the article would be kept if it were sourced properly — but mayors of cities, even 100K+, do not get an automatic presumption of notability on the back of just one single piece of WP:ROUTINE coverage of their initial investiture ceremony in the local media. Everybody who's ever been mayor of anywhere could always show one piece of local media coverage about their swearing-in as mayor — so Wikipedia requires more than just that to properly establish any given mayor as notable. If the article had any halfway decent amount of substance and sourcing beyond just stating that he exists, it would be keepable — but there's no real reason to keep it if this as written is all that anybody can actually be arsed to do with him even after he's been in office for two full years. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearcat: Have a look at the article now and see whether its now better reflection of the available sources changes your mind. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, better. Changed to keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I trawled through the coverage for the articles that went beyond routine and those that provided biographical information, plus used two official biographies. I believe he's attracted enough coverage to demonstrate notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the excellent work that Yngvadottir has done to expand and reference the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After the improvements to the article, I still feel O'Dekirk fails WP:NPOL because the coverage is completely routine local politics coverage from local media. That is not enough for a local political figure to demonstrate notability. There is no in-depth profile pieces from national or international media. The official biographies of him from the city council and a law firm do not contribute to notability, they are primary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joliet has a population of just short of 150,000, so the standards for geographic range of coverage aren't as strict as they would have to be if it had a population of just 500 or 1,000. We accept mayors of major cities as notable, as long as they cite reliable sources and say more than just "he exists, the end" — for a city of this size with a directly elected executive mayor, the coverage doesn't have to nationalize nearly as much as it would for the mayor of a small village. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what policy or guideline that is based on? AusLondonder (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Joiliet is a suburb of Chicago, not a major regional city. Population alone does not tell us how major a city is. The coverage of O'Dekirk just does not rise above routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 16 October 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.