Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Casar

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. This article has been improved since the nomination. From the time of improvements, there was no support for deletion. Yet even if disregarding the change over time, general consensus was to keep. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Casar

[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, referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, of a person notable only as a city councillor. As always, this is not an automatic notability freebie that guarantees a person an article in and of itself -- at this level of office, the bar that a person has to clear to qualify for a Wikipedia article is that they've been the subject of enough nationalizing reliable source coverage in real media to credibly claim that they're significantly more notable than most other city councillors. But this only cites content self-pubished by his own city's government, which is not what it takes. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if he were notable, the content of the article is so poor we'd still have to delete or at least draftify this article on BLP grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 14:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete city council members are not default notable and the sourcing here is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but primary sources and basic election coverage, insufficient to support a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. Austin is a state capital but is not a world-class city, for which notability would be automatic. I would be willing to "adopt" this - ping me before deleting. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added additional information to the article that may help address the primary sources and credibility issues. Terracottaplant1990 (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please assess the updates to the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BARE and WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a city councilman does not confer automatic notability as said by nominator. If there was a WP:SIGCOV then it would definitely be a keep, maybe too soon for now. Lord Grandwell (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I would ask the other reviewers to go back and check out the new and massively improved article. If we delete articles with this much effort having been put in after a warning shot across the bow, we are doing a disservice to our encyclopedia. Impressive work by the author.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's ref-bombed now. There's about two articles which are specifically on him which cover him separately from the city council. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, that’s a risk we run when we over-emphasize procedural reasons for AfD or for votes. In the spirit of no knowledge is bad knowledge, I’m personally not upset by it.--Concertmusic (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Being a city council member in Austin, Texas is a situation where WP:NPOL gives no strong guidance one way or the other. While WP:HEY certainly applies compared to the initially nominated article, the sheer number of references are misleading; many are either primary sources such as the Austin election results, are pieces by Casar, or don't mention Casar. Most of the sources that do mention him is local. However, local coverage such as [1] and [2] is just enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep City councilors are not inherently notable under WP:NPOL. However, WP:POLOUTCOMES mentions councilors in cities with international prominence can be kept. While I wouldn't rate Austin up with cities like Chicago and New York where we automatically keep all councilors do to precedent. It's apparent here that Casar does appear to be a little more than your average councilor. He has substantial local coverage (probably more than average councilor), a good amount of state wide coverage (The Texas Observer), and has some more national sources like Politico and the Guardian. Obliviously, not a no body councilor and has just as much if not more coverage than most state legislators. WP:HEY and WP:BARE are here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article was total crap when it was nominated -- since then it's undergone a pretty substantial expansion (and now features a slew of acceptable sources). It could still do with some slight copyediting, but it definitely does not warrant the hatchet. jp×g 02:13, 12 December 2020 (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.