Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elwyn Tinklenberg


 * 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 no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Elwyn Tinklenberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL as a non-notable candidate. The individual is not inherently notable because he served as the mayor of Blaine, Minnesota, a city of 50,000-some-odd people. Additionally, most of the article is sourced to local Minnesota sources and the former candidate's website. KidAd (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. His notability derives not  from his candidacy for office, but as member of the governor's cabinet as the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation, one of the chief administrative officers of the state.  "Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable . . .".  See  Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes.  Kablammo (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Our articles on US state cabinet-level transportation commissioners include:
 * Roger Millar (engineer), and
 * The 13 members of our category for New Jersey Commissioners of Transportation;
 * as well as one city-level commissioner:
 * Polly Trottenberg
 * I agree with the nominator that candidacy for public office does not automatically confer notability, but that is not the basis for a finding of notability here. Kablammo (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I actually created Roger Millar, which survived an AfD as no consensus. I argued that Millar had recieved coverage from multiple RS, particularly in connection with the 2017 Washington train derailment. I have not been able to find similar coverage of Tinklenberg from his time as Director/Commissioner of the Minnesota DOT. KidAd (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * If you go to MnDOT's website and search for his name by checking "All State of Minnesota Web Sites" you will see 70 entries, some of which relate to his service. Google books also has some listings.  He was also quoted after the I-35W bridge collapse, and was active both in light rail in Minnesota.  But the basic principle still is that, as a member of the governor's cabinet, he is notable.  The campaign sites and references should be eliminated from the article or at least reduced, and reliance should instead be placed on independent books, media, and state documents.  I will add some links on the talk page, for possible use.  Kablammo (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * State documents aren't bolsterers of notability — a source only assists in establishing his notability if it's independent of him, and not if it comes from his own employer. And neither are sources in which he is quoted in coverage of events — he has to be the subject of a source, not just a giver of soundbite in a source whose primary subject is something else, before that source assists in building his notability. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem. It is clear that online newspaper archives do not go back as far as we need-- this is made clear by the fact that the StarTribune's glowing editorial on Tinklenberg's retirement is not available on the paper's website, but is excerpted on the state's media resources.  The problem is not the absence of sources, but the dearth of online resources due to age.  I well remember Ventura's administration and the attention his transportation policy (and transportation commissioner) received then, which resulted in the Hiawatha light rail line and some years later in the commuter rail line to Big Lake, which was pushed by the governor and Tinklenberg. (And I'd be hard-pressed to name any other members of Ventura's cabinet.)  But online newspaper archives do not really cover the era. We should follow the policy that cabinet members in state government are presumed to be notable, and not assume that because if it ain't online, it ain't reliable-- or ain't there.  Kablammo (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody said anything about the onlineness or non-onlineness of any potential sources. The newspaper's own archives aren't the only possible place to look, because things like ProQuest, Questia, EBSCO and microfilms still exist too — and we don't have any requirement that our sources have to be online at all, either, but are allowed to cite print-only content like books and pre-Googleable newspaper articles. Accordingly, we don't keep poorly sourced articles just because you presume that non-Googlable sources probably exist, we keep poorly sourced articles only if better sources are explicitly shown to exist. And we also don't have any policy that cabinet members in state government are automatically presumed notable even if no valid sources are shown, either: they keep articles if good sources are shown, and not if they aren't. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I would argue that his most notable role was as Mayor. Mayors are quite often notable. However, the Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes exception is probably meant for national cabinets rather than state, regional or municipal cabinets. Nonetheless, the extensive political account does not get us to notability. We need sources that document his biography. If we had cited content regarding his ancestry (at least his parents), where he went to high school and such, I would support this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But you missed the part where "Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state [...]". ミラP 19:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Generally" does not mean "always": it means "if they clear GNG on the sources". Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It's vague. And I was talking to, not the Bearcat. ミラP 22:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it does — no notability claim that anybody can make is ever so "inherently" notable that it exempts them from having to have any reliable sources at all. And absolutely anybody in this discussion is allowed to reply to absolutely anything said in this discussion regardless of who you were originally "addressing", so it doesn't matter who you were or weren't talking to either. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you ignored WP:NPROF which is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline? 🤦 ミラP 22:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * SNGs aren't "alternatives" to GNG; they serve to list the types of statements that count as notability claims if GNG-supporting coverage supports the truth of the statement, not as things that people get exempted from having to have sources just because the article says them. People can and do try to sneak pet topics or total hoaxes into Wikipedia by lying about notability claims they don't really have in reality — we literally just within the last four days had to delete an article about a politician who couldn't even be verified as having ever existed at all, let alone as having held a notable political role — so simply stating that somebody passes a notability criterion is never an exemption from having to have the correct kind of sources to properly verify that the notability claim is true. And even if SNGs did exempt people from having to have any sources, PROF wouldn't apply to Tinklenberg anyway. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. While being commissioner of the department of transportation can get him an article if he can be shown to clear WP:GNG for it, it is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts him from having to clear GNG just because he exists. But the sources present in the article aren't what he needs to show to get over the GNG bar — and primary source content from his own employer, directory listings and short soundbites in coverage about other things, the only other potential new sources that have been alluded to in this discussion, still aren't what he needs to show either. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per my reasons in my reply to TonyTheTiger. ミラP 19:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The section you cite says subcabinet officials are usually notable (implying cabinet officials are notable), but this is understood to mean national level. Later in that section it demonstrates this distinction between national and sub-national for party leaders, which is a different thing from cabinet officials. However, it notes that subnational party leaders "are usually deleted". I assume the same is true for subnational cabinet officials. They have to rely on WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment considering we keep every article on a state legislator, I find it hard to justify deleting articles on members of state cabinets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * State legislators are kept because they pass GNG on the sourcing, not because they're somehow exempted from having to have any non-primary sources just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 11 March 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.