Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Daniel


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Chris Daniel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged but that is what this appears to be: it was written by User:Harris DC about the Harris County District Clerk. Whilst I commend the author for removing the most peacocky of the content within the article when advised to do so, this still remains an entirely flattering and one-sided profile of a subject whose political career depends on a positive public perception and appears to fall foul of WP:SOAP. Then there is the question of notability: WP:POLITICIAN notes that elected politicians at state level or greater are generally notable, but this is a county post. Not all the refs mention the subject and those that do are doubtful in terms of meeting WP:GNG. I have strong reservations about the article's neurality and there does not appear to be sufficient notability to justify its inclusion. I42 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The office he was elected to is nowhere near high enough for him to meet our notability guidelines for politicians. Article can be recreated if he moves up to a higher office. No other persuasive claim to notability is made. Cullen328 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I originally deleted it per db-g11 as spam and restored it (reluctantly) per author Harris DC's complaint on my talk page.  After restoration, Harris DC removed speedy deletion tags and Collinsbarry showed up for a single edit to do the same.  I agree completely with the nominator's deletion rationale and with Cullen 348.  – Athaenara  ✉  23:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Those contributing to the page are new to wikipedia. Athaenara is right in that the guidelines on rules where not initially followed, but that has since ceased after being put on notice by same.

The office answers to 4.3 million tax payers. The office holder was voted in by over half a million voters in the 2010 election (with over 1.2 million people total voting in this race alone). The county is the largest in TX. The DA (district attorney Pat Lykos has her own page, yet without the district clerk to manage the Sheriff and DA's criminal intake PLUS the 74 countywide courts and staff and paperwork/ filings that go withit, she cannot do her job and prosecute any criminals.

It is a farce to say that this position is not notable when the office controls 500 employees and 26.6 million dollars in budget. It is a farce when the district clerk of the largest county in Texas gets elected with more votes than candidate for US senate or Governor in other states like Delaware. I understand that the username was in conflict, but i just picked a name. My goal is to flesh out the existing Harris County website with a note on each of its office holders.

Not sure the editors are aware, but Houston is only one third the size in population of Harris County (and resides almost entirely inside the county). More people voted for District Clerk then for Mayor Annise Parker.--Harris DC (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, there is no substantial third party coverage of this person. There is one reference that is actually about him, the rest are mentions. Hairhorn (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - A county-wide or city-wide position in a large municipalty is sometimes kept, and sometimes not. I would not say it would be a "farce" to delete this article, but I think it should be kept per WP:POLITICIAN.  District attorneys of larger counties usually rate their own article, see, e.g., David Soares and Cyrus Vance, Jr., but county legislators or special district commisioners do not, see e.g., Articles for deletion/Bruce Blakeman.  City attorneys and "corporation counsel" are not normally notable, see, e.g., Articles for deletion/Gail Goode, nor are councillers from small cities.  Carol Moseley Braun, who was Cook County, Illinois Recorder of deeds, a similar position to that of Harris County district clerk, at the time of her election to the United States Senate. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Added three more on point (about--not mentions) mainstream articles and Electoral Summary to show orders of magnitude.--Harris DC (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN.  Contributor and defender is a WP:SPA and there are probably issues here of WP:AUTO. Qworty (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Houston is currently the forth largest city in the US (residing almost entirely inside Harris County), and yet is only one third of Harris County's entire population.  The County-wide office holders clearly merit articles.--Harris DC (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. As stated above, in terms of WP:POLITICIAN, county-wide or city-wide position in a large municipalty is sometimes kept, and sometimes not. However, in this case, the latter seems appropriate. Regardless of one's position on whether one of the biographical subguidelines is met, given that this is a WP:BLP article, WP:GNG still needs to be met, and the substantive coverage from WP:RS does not exist here. Some weak election coverage and information about the office itself do not indicate non-trivial information actually about the person. -- Kinu t /c  21:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete not a position that will make someone notable for the purposes of a general encyclopedia, even in a large metropolitan area. Some county positions are: the county sherriff or DA would be notable.    DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good arguments have been madeas to why this an exception to the local government rule.  Additionally, although sources are currently lacking, they surely can be found and most likely will be added with time.  The vanity issue has been addressed and begun to be remedied.  I don't love the article in its current state, but deletion is not the answer, since it has the full potential to meet verifiability and notability.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: seeing as how this is a WP:BLP, deletion would be the answer if WP:V isn't met. The general potential to meet it isn't good enough. -- Kinu t /c  02:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS,WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:AUTO. It's basically just self-promotion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2011 (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.