Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Balfour (politician)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Don Balfour (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All the sources I have found are about the one incident mentioned in the article. He was acquitted of all charges and reinstated to the Georgia Senate. It does not appear that there is significant coverage in reliable sources other than for this one event. GB fan 13:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. State senators are notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Undue weight upon the corruption charges is an issue for editing. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * weak Delete - Sorry, I got busy after I had started that discussion on the Talk page and didn't follow up. I don't know normal procedure, but I would have proposed deleting with possible stub being created. It has been substantially trimmed, but still the acquittal is majority of article. I will see if there are general references to anything outside of that case, but as it stands I would still say delete. Brinkley32 (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. State senators are notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Enos733 (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:POLITICIAN does not say that state senators are notable. WP:POLITICIAN is a subsection of Notability (people).  This says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."  So being a state senator does not guarantee that Balfour is notable.  GB fan 01:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Reliable sources are the key to meeting WP:GNG, thus the presumption behind WP:POLITICIAN is that reliable sources exist about members of a subnational government.  Most major newspapers will run biographical articles about the candidate or winner of a state legislative race. In this case, there is plenty of information that A) the subject serves in the Georgia State Senate, and was first elected in 1992 B) has an official biography on the State Senate page and C) there are multiple reports about his indictment in major papers. This subject is also recognized as the Republican majority caucus chairman in a 2003 New York Times article. Enos733 (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We agree that reliable sources are the key and that Politician assumes those sources are available. When I looked for sources all I could find are sources about the indictment and that does not meet the GNG.  You have found something I did not and it is now looking better.  GB fan 10:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 11:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Comment Went back and looked at the two sources that have been presented since I started the AFD. The one source that was added to the article did not mention Balfour at all but I found one to verify the information presented, but the information is just a list of names.  The source above does mention Balfour but just presents one quote from him.  The only significant coverage I have found or anyone has presented all pertains to him being indicted and acquitted.  GB fan 12:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep WP:Politician does say state senators are notable, it is part of the primary clause, as state legislators: 1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. (bolding mine so you see the words).Dru of Id (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And WP:Politician is a subsection of Additional Criteria and it says
 * "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Notability. Editors may find these criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using for example), or to instead initiate a deletion discussion."


 * bolding as in the original. So state senators are "likely to be notable" but being a state senator "does not guarantee that a subject should be included".  GB fan 15:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This shouldn't even be a close call.  Being the subject of a controversy does not make a public figure non-notable.  Concern about negative content is understandable but deleting the article is not the solution.  Articles about state senators are kept routinely, and in this case the subject has been in office for decades, served as the president of the National Conference of State Legislatures, and is the subject of copious press coverage. (2,500 hits at AJC.com alone! ) Slogging through Google for news coverage can be time-consuming (GNews Archives, you are missed!) but HighBeam has coverage on him going back to 1996 ; he was elected chairman of the Republican caucus in 2002  and later chairman of the Rules Committee ; in 2003 he was noted nationally for efforts on behalf of anti-abortion legislation ;  and there's plenty more where that comes from.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said that being the subject of a controversy makes him non-notable. I said that the only significant coverage I was able to find was about the one event.  Now that someone else has been able to find significant coverage outside of the one event, I agree the article should be kept.  GB fan 16:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, per WP:POLITICIAN, members of sub-national legislatures are notable. We always keep them all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Arxiloxos. The sources and WP:POLITICIAN both warrant keeping the article. - Aoidh (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As other contributors have pointed out WP:POLITICIAN applies here.
 * 1) Note, this article was first discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion.
 * 2) In my opinion the concerns voiced at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion should have been voiced at Talk:Don Balfour (politician).
 * 3) Deletion of well documented articles due to editorial concerns is counter to our deletion policies.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment My question to the closing administrators is why was this AfD relisted twice? As Arxiloxos said, this is not even a close call. State legislators in the United States are notable. Enos733 (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep State senators are very clearly notable. This is one of the clear take-away points from the notability guidelines for politicians. Whether members of state houses are notable is a bit less clear, but state senators are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 20 February 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.