Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Gaul


 * 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 -- Flyguy649 talk 05:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Frank Gaul

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a negative biography of a guy who is only possible notable for an accusation of negligence with funds, for which he was acquitted on appeal.

Fails WP:BLP1E by a mile. Scott Mac (Doc) 09:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Certainly seems to fail WP:BLP1E. Searched for relevant sourcing in GNews in the 1990's and turned up nothing but a mess of coverage on this legal issue. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  09:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As a countywide officeholder in a large urban county for 20 years, he's clearly a notable figure. He was also a Democratic candidate for Congress in 1994. An initial search of The Plain Dealer archives (1991-present) returned over 180 results for "Frank Gaul". - Eureka Lott 13:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you link to anything from the PD archives that doesn't cover Gaul in context of the legal fiasco? I almost tendered a "weak delete" on this because of a few things you say above, I just haven't been able to find any meaningful coverage on Gaul outside of the legal problem. The WP:POLITICIAN guidelines for non-national officeholders require substantial coverage (the Mayor example they give is a good one -- ie the office doesn't make the politician notable, but a countywide officer can usually count on substantial coverage as a byproduct of his/her job), and there's almost a strange conflict between those guidelines and BLP1E in this case, because Gaul certainly has substantial coverage, but as far as I can tell it's only related to one event. I just think BLP1E supersedes the Politician guidelines (I tend to think anything with BLP in front of it supersedes everything, hehe), but even a bit of non-trivial coverage outside of the legal fiasco would probably push me to a keep vote. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 21:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Long-serving treasurer of a very large county is more than a mere local politician. There is more to this than BLP1E. There was ongoing coverage of the subject before his legal troubles and this "one event" seems to have had a lasting impact over a decade later. However, any negative unsourced parts of the article should be wiped (which I have now gone ahead and done). --Mkativerata (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If there was coverage of the financial problems, then write an article on them and not a bio. What you've done is left the record of the "reports" of one newspaper, while removing the fact the individual was acquitted. How is that good?--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing it until I find a source for it. Until then we have no idea he was even sent to trial (which itself is a negative connotation) --Mkativerata (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources now added. Anyone let me know if you'd like to see any direct quotes from the offline sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * keep per Mkativerata's excellent work. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2010 (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.