Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steuart Pittman, Jr.

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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steuart Pittman, Jr.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BLP of a county executive, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, the county level of office is not an automatic notability freebie that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia -- it's one where the sourcing and substance need to establish that he has a credible claim to being a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for county executives. But that's not what's on offer here: this is essentially a résumé, referenced almost entirely to a mixture of primary sources (raw tables of election results, the self-published websites of organizations that he's directly affiliated with, etc.) that aren't support for notability at all and run of the mill coverage in community hyperlocals, with only one hit from a major WP:GNG-worthy daily newspaper (which isn't enough all by itself.)
In addition, there's also a possibility of WP:COI editing here, as there were at least two prior attempts to create an article about him at the title Steuart Pittman, which consisted of a county employee trying to create the article by copy-pasting Pittman's own self-penned biography directly from the county website in defiance of our copyvio rules, and then trying to bypass the WP:AFC process by moving it into mainspace themselves without the AFC review that was especially mandatory because of the COI.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just the routinely expected level of local media coverage that every county executive in every county always has. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Maryland. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very well reasoned argument of the nominator. County executives are almost never notable, and there is nothing to show this as one of the very extremely rare exceptions to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Anne Arundel County is a fairly big jurisdiction, of over 1/2 a million people. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "big jurisdiction" exemption in WP:NPOL #2 — no matter how big a county is or isn't, the county executive's eligibility for a Wikipedia article remains undetachable from whether or not he can be shown to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet GNG or WP:NPOL. Only found stray mentions of him in the Post and other DC Metro area papers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Appears to be little to no coverage to be found beyond routine campaign coverage. Sal2100 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2022 (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.