Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Ireton

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 redirect to Salisbury, Maryland#Mayors_of_Salisbury. There's not a huge amount of consensus here, but given that the amount of coverage may result in the name being searched, a redirect to the city is unexceptional. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ireton

Jim Ireton (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)

Fails

WP:POLITICIAN. Doesn't really meet notability standards. He is a local politician. Citations are nearly all local. City is small. It should keep us busy if we are going to allow bios on every mayor that ever has been elected, anywhere in the world. The situation will be worse than with athletes or musicians. Student7 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Per
WP:OUTCOMES, a historic first, such as a city's first-ever woman, African American or LGBT mayor, can qualify for an article on those grounds regardless of whether or not the city's mayors would otherwise qualify on a "size of the city" criterion. And even the "size of the city" is intentionally not defined as a specific population cutoff (given that Wikipedia specifically deprecates arbitrary size cutoffs), but as the more general qualification that the city merely needs to have "regional prominence" — a criterion which, at least to me, certainly includes the anchor city of a metropolitan statistical area with a population of over 100,000, whose article describes it as the largest city and the commercial hub of a well-defined and notable geographic region. You're free to have a different opinion on that latter argument, certainly, but given that the guy was a historic first he passes on that criterion regardless of what anybody thinks about whether the city is "regionally prominent" enough to permit articles about the mayors who preceded him. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
czar · · 17:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
czar · · 17:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
czar · · 17:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The above statement maybe misleading. Salisbury has a population of 30,343 as of the 2010 U.S. Census. The subject of this AfD is not elected over the MSA which is stated above, but only the city itself. For instance, the city of
largest cities in California (#88) and is not as regionally significant as other larger cities within its county. Therefore having its name in a U.S. Census Bureau designated region does not make the city, and its mayor, automatically notable IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. So we can look forward to "First Catholic Mayor," "First Lutheran Mayor," "First U-U Mayor," "First convicted felon," "First mayor to be convicted while in office," "First mayor to admit to inhaling while smoking marijuana," "First mayor to approve of dancing (assuming the city goes back to the 19th century," "First mayor to advocate prohibition," "First mayor to advocate repeal of Prohibition," "First mayor to approve/disapprove of secession/uniting with the Union during the Civil War," "First mayor to help with/try to stop the
Underground Railway," (There was also a reverse organization!)? In short a rather infinity of articles, all heavily dependent on then-current cultural trends, but (like Prohibition), somewhat limited in interest now? Student7 (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Look up the
WP:POLITICIAN. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. It seems to me that this is, at best a
WP:LOWPROFILE, since he does not address LGBT issues on a continuing basis. He is mayor of all the people, which is good government, but bad for notability! Suggest merging to Salisbury article. Student7 (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Not one LGBT politician in history has ever focused exclusively on LGBT issues to the detriment of actually representing all the people, in precisely the same way as a woman mayor does not somehow fail to be the mayor of the men in her city just because she's a woman. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think we should not create articles for the "first x" unless we can show that this gained wide notability. If he was the "first x" in all of Maryland maybe, but if he is just the "first x" for a small local that is not notable enoug.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mayor of a city of 30,000 people that most people have never heard of is not notable, gay or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Student7 and John Pack Lambert. Every mayor is a "first" for some reason or another. The subject should receive significant coverage of the historic or societal barrier they break. See Stu Rasmussen, the Mayor of Silverton, Oregon as a good example of a significant "first." Enos733 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Salisbury, Maryland, where it could be briefly mentioned he was the first gay major of the city. Cavarrone (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ireton's election was not an event of international, national, regional, or even statewide significance. This is one instance where
    WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Ireton&oldid=1137950253"