Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ditslear

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. Sandstein 09:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Ditslear

John Ditslear (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)

Clear failure of WP:NPOL. Prod removed with an explanation that coverage of his mayoral tenure in the Indianapolis Business Journal somehow creates a NPOL pass for a long term mayor of a midsize Indianapolis suburb. If after 14 years as a mayor, nothing more than local coverage of his tenure can be shown, he's not notable. None is shown, and I found none. John from Idegon (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I did not say it necessarily made it pass. I said it was possible he would meet the criteria. I haven't done outside searching at this point, but the fact that there was a profile in a state level paper indicates that there might be enough sourcing. Please assume good faith and do not be dismissive of other editors with your tone. matt91486 (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• A couple of sources I've found that seem to go beyond trivial coverage at the Indianapolis Star: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. This should not be considered definitive, as it's just from one source, and it seems their website search goes back only until the beginning of 2015, so I will try to do some more substantial digging later. matt91486 (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No one said he didn't make GNG. That is not enough. He has to meet NPOL. That would certainly take more than anything from the Star. Either his political career must have garnered coverage in detail from outside Metro Indianapolis, or he makes GNG for another reason outside of politics. John from Idegon (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a misinterpretation, as GNG is the primary criteria for all notability. A mayor of a 5,000 person town could theoretically meet the GNG and be notable. matt91486 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since every mayor of everywhere always gets local media coverage, every mayor of everywhere would always get to claim passage of GNG as an exemption from having to clear NPOL. So no, NPOL is not irrelevant just because a couple of local media sources happen to exist — for mayors of small towns and cities the GNG test is not "does some local media coverage of him exist?", because it never doesn't, but "do the volume, depth and/or geographic range of his sourceability demonstrate a reason why he would qualify as a special case?" Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GNG overrides NPOL. NPOL would assume notability in a lot of instances. What NPOL does is helps distinguish which coverage is significant versus coverage which is not significant, since any local politician will always have local news stories about the local politics they are involved in. The significant coverage test for local politicians, on the WP:NPOL page, is multiple feature articles in multiple sources, which doesn't appear to be the case for Mr. Ditslear, at least not on the sources shown. SportingFlyer talk 21:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• A handful more sources about his elections/campaigns are here: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Again, I don't think any one of these is definitive necessarily, but they do supplement what is in the article (and I think at least is worthy of having a discussion in AfD rather than PROD, regardless of the outcome). I would agree with SportingFlyer, that only the IBS article in the existing article would fully qualify as a quote-unquote feature article about him, likely. matt91486 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being mayor of a suburb is not an automatic free pass over NPOL just because he exists, but the article is not referenced well enough to actually make him notable under WP:GNG. A couple of pieces of coverage in the local media is not enough to get a mayor over the bar in and of itself, because every mayor of everywhere could always show that — in a city this size, the sourceability and substance of the article has to add up to "this mayor is a special case over and above most small-city mayors", not just "this mayor exists", to get him over the bar. GNG is not automatically passed the moment the number of sources in an article exceeds two, and it is not necessarily passed by purely local coverage that's simply expected to exist for all mayors — so showing a few pieces of Indianapolis-based coverage is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A non-notable mayor. Going to have to see more sources to meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete coverage (Proquest archive search,) is limited to regional and WP:MILL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2018 (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.