Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Cranmer


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 08:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bob Cranmer

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Bob Cranmer has not demonstrated notability. The closest thing to notability would be this incident: "As being a member of the first Republican majority in Allegheny County government since the Great Depression, Bob is primarily known for his famous "split" with his Republican running mate Larry Dunn and subsequent governing alliance with Democrat Mike Dawida." Here are some articles covering the split. Regardless of this event, I don't believe that Bob Cranmer is notable. There also seems to have a conflict of interest issue as the author is. Lastly, Cranmer does not fall into WP:POLITICIAN as he falls under second-level sub-national politician (as the former County Commissioner of Allegheny County) when first-level sub-national is the cut off. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 10:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I concur, this is not a notable politician. Also the last line of the article leads me to believe that this was just copied from some other web site (and that they didn't bother to format the text).  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 10:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable and self-promotion. It is indeed substantially copied from the website of his employer, Pugliese Associates, Government affairs consultants, but has probably been altered just enough to avoid speedy deletion as copyvio. JohnCD (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is probably notable. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania is a major county with population over a million, and political leaders in a jurisdiction of that size are likely to have substantial news coverage. Ray (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- Ray (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- Ray (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. --Revolución hablar ver 14:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. May or may not meet WP:POLITICIAN, but meets WP:BIO by virtue of substantial independent press coverage.  WP:POLITICIAN is an inclusive standard, not an exclusive one: Gary Coleman doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, either, but is still notable. WP:COI violations are not independent grounds for deletion, just for page-scrubbing.  THF (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do no think that anyone has claimed that Gary Coleman's notability is based on his career in politics. Can you point out for me (completely for my own benefit and future editing) where a policy is marked as an inclusive standard as opposed to an exclusive one?  I guess I don't see how it's different if WP:POLITICIAN would be the only reason that a subject would be notable (theoretically, not in this case).  My talk page would probably be the best place to reply to that request as it's just for me and not part of the discussion of this article.  Thanks.  18:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlYeller21 (talk • contribs)
 * I can respond here, since it expands upon my reasoning. I'm agreeing with you that you are correct that a "second-level sub-national politician" is not notable by itself. But here, Cranmer's notability would be based on substantial coverage by independent reliable sources, not by virtue of his resume.  WP:POLITICIAN is a policy of convenience that allows editors to sidestep the debate of whether a particular lieutenant governor has had that level of press coverage (which would otherwise be a problem when we're talking about 19th century politicians from states without century-old newspaper archives available on line), but it doesn't mean a politician who doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN automatically gets deleted. THF (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Made some general improvements to the article as part of Article Rescue Squadron. Magnetic Rag (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve per THF above. Referenced news items are now in the article, and subject is clearly notable, though the article got off to a rocky start. Give this article some time, and it will be worth keeping. MuffledThud (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has received significant coverage, and the article now demonstrates this. decltype 20:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:LUC really coming into play, but someone should do a WP:BLP check. THF (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep improved article as meeting WP:PEOPLE even if weak for WP:POLITICIAN.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:46, 3 March 2009 (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.