Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Stewart (American politician)

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. A close one, but the consensus appears to just be in favour of deleting the article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Stewart (American politician)

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

This mayor of

WP:GNG or are the mayors of very large cities. Counterexamples exist, but they too are of questionable notability. Blast Ulna (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete I agree. My sympathies to the family of Mr. Stewart, but we also have a strict policy against memorials, and the page was created, apparently, from the obituary being in the news. The criteria under
WP:MEMORIAL is that the persons who qualify are "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Frankly, I think that it's too inclusive and inconsistent, and "major" is a matter of opinion. I don't think it would extend to all cities with populations of 100,000 and up, because there are thousands of cities worldwide that are at least that size. Anybody who has read a book about Harry S. Truman has heard of Independence, but it's not a major city. Mandsford 18:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - One can demonstrate multiple independent sources based on the obits; one can disregard the same based on the "incidental single event" of the mayor dying. It comes down to this somewhat philosophical question: is Wikipedia better off having this particular article up and accessible or better off wiping this article away? I can see no compelling reason for removal, information of potential interest to WP users is lost in the process and nothing of value is gained. Carrite (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These people are of purely local interest. Can you provide any sources on the subject from more than 100 miles away? Blast Ulna (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a (lack of) proximity requirement for "reliable independent sources." Carrite (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage of a restaurant--"decent food, friendly service"--is that enough for a Wkipedia article? Local coverage of a ceremonial mayor--"he promoted the city and was well liked". Blast Ulna (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am torn on this one. Mandsford has logic on his side. However, he was a mayor of a county seat and city of 121,000 people. What do others think? Bearian (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Two of his obituaries are rather short, and a third is from a redlinked newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mayor for 12 years of a city with a population in excess of 100,000 should be worth an article, and there are reliable sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - There are countless articles on this site for fictional characters from literature, film, television and video games. There are also well written articles, as well as stubs, pertaining to famous dogs, cats and racehorses, all of which should be included. Yet articles about actual people who govern cities or towns are often deleted or nominated for deletion. From an academic standpoint, this doesn't make much sense. People who govern a city of town or 20K+, 50K+ or 100,000+, etc, such as Stewart are certainly deserving of an article. There should be no such artbitrary size limit or locality for this Mayor. Just today there was an interesting bio article on DYK about the Mayor who governed a town of just 13,000 people. These types of articles on Mayors, etc., add to the resources available to readers on this site. Stewart governed a large, regional city of more than 100,000 people for more than 12 years. He seems to have had an impact deserving of an article. Scanlan (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no, he did not govern the city. His position was largely ceremonial. There is no arbritrary number of people in a city for the mayor to be notable; notability is determined by analysis in multiple secondary sources. The locally written obituary on him shows that he did his job well, but
Wikipedia is not a memorial. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The coverage is just too limited to qualify for the GNG (local and non-extensive). And the claims to "inherent notability" are weakened by the ceremonial nature of the position. --
Mkativerata (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2010 (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.