Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Coleman (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   delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ed Coleman (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to meet WP:NPOL -- not a statewide office. – S. Rich (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep city of over 800,000 residents and the largest in the region outside of Chicago. His switch to the Libertarian Party itself makes the article quite notable, as it is rare for elected officials to join a smaller party in the U.S.--TM 02:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also note that Coleman was interviewed Reason Magazine, a national libertarian-minded magazine. I've added the reference to the article.--TM 17:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the nom, he does not meet NPOL.  I could not find anything on him in google news.  Notability has nothing to do with how significant or interesting his actions are; it is all about how many reliable secondary sources found his actions interesting.  In this case, it is at this point none.  Fails WP:GNG.  however it is quite possible that this is just WP:TOOSOON. John from Idegon (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:BARE as a City Councillor of a large enough city. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks the coverage that would be needed to have an article. With under 1 million people, Indianapolis is not of a size we should presume all city councilors are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Switching to the Libertarian Party might have meant increased coverage which would mean he passes GNG. That wasn't the case and the only hits that a search turns up are from blogs and the LP itself. Simply being a former city councillor means he fails GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Elected city councilor of a major American city. His switch of parties adds to newsworthiness and importance to the history of the region. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The position is one of 29 seats on the council. – S. Rich (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete As some of the others said, this may be TOOSOON; but currently, does not meet GNG, and I tend to be rather inclusionist. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: The interview in reason.com has only recently been added. Other contributors to this debate need to be given an opportunity to comment on the effect this source has on notability


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 11:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep He has some 3rd parties talking about him, so it seems notable enough to keep. Frmorrison (talk)


 * Delete The sources provided do not indicate that the subject of this AfD are significant. I think we would expect coverage of his party switch to be the subject of national, mainstream papers to pass WP:GNG --Enos733 (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. In my view the GNG (significant coverage 'addressing the topic directly and in detail') requires more than what is presented here: enough coverage to create a proper -- not long or comprehensive, but proper -- and reliable biography. That's not the case here.  And nor should that be surprising for one of many members of the council of a mid-sized city.--Mkativerata (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indianapolis is not a city where a consensus exists to treat all city councillors as inherently notable under WP:POLITICIAN, and this article is not extensively sourced enough to give him the benefit of the doubt per WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree the council is too large, city too small, and coverage not enough for a separate article. An article on the history of the council membership would be much more useful and could incorporate the key data for Coleman and all the other members, though it would be a huge task. Perhaps List of former Indianapolis City-County Council members? --Milowent • hasspoken  15:46, 24 July 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.