Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnet Maybank III


 * 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Burnet Maybank III

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional article based upon unsourced clams and promotional  sources. Best Lawyers in America is not a reliable source for notability. Relative minor public positions, relatively minor community activities and awards/ (I tried to fix the promotionalism, but found there was almost nothing left.)  DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I originally proposed this one for deletion. I think it's clear he doesn't meet notability requirements. Muttnick (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Does a state commissioner of revenue pass WP:NPOL as someone who has held state/province–wide office? My gut says no; my penchant for nitpicking says yes. But even if he does technically pass NPOL, I'm not seeing sufficient sustained coverage of his only claim to notability. There's this (paywalled), for instance, and an article called "Small team to shape Sanford administration" in The Post and Courier (a couple sentences about him) but not a whole lot else. In most respects your standard tax lawyer. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaning delete. I don't think WP:NPOL is intended to cover every head of every state agency. The state of South Carolina has hundreds of executive branch agencies, and while the Department of Revenue is undoubtedly an important one, there is also a Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, a Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, a Department of Archives and History, a Department of Juvenile Justice, a Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, and so on, each having a department head on the same level in the state structure as the person atop the Department of Revenue. I am only leaning delete because this subject has apparently written a fair number of articles and some books (one error in the article, though, is that it lists a book titled The Law of Automobile Insurance, when the actual book is The Law of Automobile Insurance in South Carolina, a much narrower topic). If his writing garnered reviews or commentary, I think that would put him over the line, but his government office does not. BD2412  T 03:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2020 (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.