Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Cox (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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Greg Cox (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Inadequately sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a county supervisor. As always, people at the county level of government are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist -- to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a county supervisor needs to show a volume and depth and range of reliable source coverage that suggests he's got a credible claim to being substantially more notable than most other county councillors. Showing just enough sourcing to nominally verify that he exists is not enough -- but with just one local news hit and his own primary source profile on the county board's own self-published website, this is not sourced well enough. And even on the level of content, considerably more than half of this article is taken up by a list of the city neighborhoods that happen to be contained in his district, while the content about him literally doesn't go even one inch beyond "he exists". Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Another minor local politician without any significant claim to actually being notable. No sources demonstrate significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons explained by Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no requirement that politicians have to be "more notable than most other" politicians at the same level, only that they have received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. That said, Cox is very much more notable than most County Supervisors, as a WP:BEFORE check would have discovered. He is the incumbent president of the National Association of Counties; a former "immensely popular" Mayor of Chula Vista (a city of a quarter-million people); a six-term incumbent; and apparently a major force in the politics of the fifth-most populous county in the USA. Overall, he is very much a major local political figure...who has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists (per WP:NPOL), and this has been the case for decades. Rather than listing sources here, I invite editors to look at my expansion of the article. FourViolas (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * revisiting due to FourViolas, but I'm still leaning delete. Mayor of a chunk of the sprawling San Diego megalopolis, and the mayor who followed him was his wife Cheryl Cox.  The problem is sourcing:  The only non-local source I'm seeing is the Los Angeles Times, which only covered Cox in relationship to a financial scandal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That's not a policy-based deletion rationale either: NPOL and GNG say nothing about sources' scope, only their reliability (A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists), and WP:AUD only applies to organizations. The local newspapers mainly used are clearly RS for local politics: the San Diego Union Tribune is over 150 years old and has four Pulitzers and a circulation of several hundred thousand, and the Times of San Diego is a younger source but one that has also won a number of journalism awards.
 * That said, the LA Times has written about Cox many times about aspects other than the COI allegation: they've covered Cox giving speeches; being endorsed; fighting environmental regulations to get the Chula Vista Bayfront project approved   and to build a Navy housing project; asking for surplus Port money; and more recent activity  . He's also been mentioned in national   and local non-California media  . FourViolas (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Although he is a politician and although Wikipedia has rather strict rules with regard to which politicians warrant coverage, it looks to me like the coverage of Cox is above the merely WP:ROUTINE (though I am noticing that  WP:ROUTINE is an WP:EVENTS guideline, not a WP:BLP one).  The election coverage gives us a basis for including the various personal details, but any coverage above this, like his becoming president of the National Association of Counties, seems to push him over the hump into notability.  A loose noose (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Maybe not an autokeep for being an elected official, but sufficient coverage to fulfill GNG. Presidency of National Association of Counties adds to the case for keeping rather than deleting. Carrite (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - very long term local politician with national coverage as president of the National Association of Counties. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I've reviewed all the sources set out above and all of the sources in the article and none of them are about him, but rather routine coverage of his actions in his role local politician. The best profiles on him are all announcements of local campaign coverage. As such he fails to meet WP:NPOL's (A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists). SportingFlyer  talk  02:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, "none of them are about him"?? I must be missing something.  I had the sense that at least most of them were "about" him, but that only some of these would count towards a notability argument.  I am not sure you can argue that the article(s) discussing his becoming president of the NAC is about the NAC or its presidency with Cox merely a byproduct of that coverage.   A loose noose (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per FourViolas. There is some cleanup of the article needed, but easily meets WP:GNG --Enos733 (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2018 (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.