Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara J. Fiala (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Barbara J. Fiala
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a person notable primarily as a commissioner of the state DMV and as a former member of a county executive, neither of which is a position that automatically confers a presumption of notability on its holders just because they existed. In addition, the article relies exclusively on two primary sources (one of which, furthermore, is a dead link), with not a whit of reliable source coverage to demonstrate that she actually passes our inclusion rules in any meaningful way. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing and the notability claim can be substantively improved, but this version, as written, is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. As County Executive, the subject was covered extensively in the Press & Sun-Bulletin.  Likewise, as DMV Commissioner, the subject was and is covered extensively in the Times Union (Albany).  So either find someone with a subscription who can browse those newspapers' archives online or show up at the Broome County Public Library or Albany Public Library and start pulling reels of microfilm.  And those are just the obvious places to look for WP:RS.  If you're going to AfD this one, then the zero-sourced or single sourced J. Russell Sprague, A. Holly Patterson, and Ralph G. Caso should go as well.  -- DanielPenfield (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While it's true that the standard for some topics is that as long as you can verify that the thing exists, it's allowed to keep an unsourced article as long as it's reasonable to expect that sources exist somewhere, that is emphatically not the standard that Wikipedia applies to biographies of living persons. That class of article requires some reliable source coverage to already be in the article in its present form, and is not entitled to be kept just because it might eventually be sourceable. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To which clause of the lengthy WP:BLP do you refer? Is it the one that begins All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source...?  We are talking about an article created in 2007, right? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The only difference between a BLP created after that date and one created before it is the article's eligibility for the specialized new WP:BLPPROD process. An article created before that date is still not entitled to stick around unsourced, and can still be deleted for being unsourced — it isn't eligible for one particular process for deleting unsourced BLPs, but it can still be put through other deletion processes, such as AFD, on that basis. However, I see that you have added some proper sourcing to the article, so consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per DanielPenfield. Tiller54 (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.