Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Williams


 * 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. SNOW  DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Brendan Williams
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

not a public figure, almost 8 years removed from a minor office — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olympiaattorney (talk • contribs) 18:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 5.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 *  Keep Former member of the Washington House of Representatives. Passes WP:NPOL. (Adding signature - --Enos733 (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC))
 * Keep. The Washington state legislature is not a "minor office" — state legislators have a straight pass of WP:NPOL #1 as articles that we must have, and the notability of a state legislator is not dependent on whether he's currently still in office or not.Given that nominating this for deletion was the nominator's first-ever Wikipedia contribution under this username (not to mention the nominator's username itself), I frankly suspect that this nomination is actually a conflict of interest attempt by Williams himself or a colleague to sweep the sexual harassment allegations under the rug — but while we do have a responsibility to be careful to address those in a neutral way, we do not have any responsibility to participate in simply making them disappear entirely. The article has existed since 2008 without anybody attempting to have it deleted until after the edit war commenced over the inclusion of the allegations. Article does need sourcing improvement, because it depends too much on primary sources as written, but the base notability claim fully passes our inclusion standard. Anything beyond that is a content issue, not a deletion issue. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've listed the nominator for a sockcheck against the article's other recent editwarriors. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep very suspicious nomination. The SPA only two edits are on this nomination barely minutes after creating account. analysis is very plausible and this is censoring of Wikipedia. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I have actually seen articles on past members of state legislatures deleted as attack articles, however this does not count as an attack articles. There is no undue weight given to the accusations against Williams. This is actually a well sourced and comprehensive biography of a state legislator, of the type we ought to have for every member of every national or top level sub-national legislature in the whole wrold. We are far short of that goal, even for current legislatures, and outside the US congress probably short of that goal for every legislature in the world, including the British parliament.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2017 (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.