User talk:S2026090

Sabino Renteria
The volume of coverage needed for a city councillor to pass WP:GNG still isn't there. The Austin Monitor is a local blog which doesn't satisfy our reliable sourcing rules at all; the Austin American Statesman reference is just to a candidate database in which every candidate (winning or losing) from that election has a profile whether they would qualify for a Wikipedia article or not; and everything else is either routine coverage of the election itself, or merely namechecks his existence without actually being about him. As I said in the AFD discussion, he would probably qualify for an article if it was well-sourced — but the sourcing that's in there right now, even after your recent edits, isn't good enough to get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The way deletion works on here is that once a discussion has run for seven days, at absolutely anytime after that an administrator can either close it as a keep or a delete, based on what's been said in that discussion, or can relist it for another seven days if there hasn't been enough participation (or if the participants are splitting down the middle and there's no clear consensus yet.) We don't just let deletion discussions run forever.
 * I wasn't the original nominator and I wasn't the final deleter (that part has to be done by someone who hasn't already participated in the discussion), but was just one commenter in the discussion — so I'm not sure why you think that simply discussing the matter with me, on our own user talk pages instead of in the AFD discussion itself, would have made any difference to whether or when the article got kept or deleted. I offered you some advice on how you could potentially improve the article's prospects of being kept, but I had no power to personally put an end to the process by myself — I was just a participant in the discussion, not the initiator or the final "decider", so this really isn't about anything I did or didn't do.
 * And DRV will generally only overturn a deletion if there's some evidence that the closing administrator acted improperly, such as by closing it earlier than seven days or by imposing their own personal opinion over a consensus that was actually leaning the opposite way — they won't generally overturn a discussion just because somebody asks for reconsideration of a deletion that didn't involve some kind of process or policy mistake, just because one editor wants to override the decision.
 * Rather, if you really believe that you can genuinely improve the article enough to get it kept, then your option is to work on it in a "sandbox" space, such as WP:AFC, and then it can potentially be moved back into articlespace again once it's been improved enough to properly meet our inclusion rules. A page deletion on Wikipedia does not mean that the subject can never have an article on here, trust me — we have lots of articles where one early version got deleted, but then something (a stronger claim of notability, improved quality of referencing, etc.) changed later on, so a better article was now able to be kept. (Just as an example, we have lots of politicians on here who had articles prematurely created about them when they were still just unelected candidates for office, and thus got deleted on that basis — but then sometime later on, they won election to an office that passes WP:NPOL, and thus qualified to be recreated.) Deletion just means that the version of the article that existed at the time of deletion was not good enough. So you do have the right to try again if you can create and source a better article about him than the one that was just deleted — you just can't recreate the same article again without adding a stronger claim of notability and/or a better quality of sourcing.
 * Also, I need to suggest that you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — just because you can point to another case that seems equivalent doesn't, in and of itself, mean that a precedent has been created. The other article may in fact also need to be deleted and just hasn't been noticed by anybody yet, or there may be other factors that you're not taking into account for why they're less equivalent than it may seem. (For example, if a former member of the United States Congress subsequently reenters politics as a city councillor in his or her own hometown, then the fact that they have an article on "previously served in Congress" grounds does not mean that all of their other colleagues on the same city council suddenly get to have articles too, if their notability is hinging on the city council itself.)
 * Hope that helps a bit. But again, I had no personal power to do anything except advise you on how you might be able to improve the article's chances — but I didn't initiate the discussion and I didn't close it, so this isn't about me at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)