Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Leahy


 * 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. clear consensus  DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Jake Leahy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nonnotable local level political activist Staszek Lem (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   22:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   22:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I feel this is a WP:GNG keeper due to his status as the youngest elected official in Illinois with a lot of related press.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN as a local school board member so the appropriate metric is WP:GNG. The references in the article include coverage several local papers and the "national" coverage include a op-ed the subject submitted to "The Hill" and a link to a local news article included in a roundup of Illinois politics in "Politico." The local coverage is WP:ROUTINE. In past AfD's being the youngest officeholder in a state has not been seen as notable, in an of itself.  --Enos733 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Prior to deciding to make this page, I did significant research to determine if this topic meets the WP:GNG. Based on those guidelines, I think there is no doubt that there is "significant coverage" which certainly covers the topic at length. These are not routine as most local elected officials and school board member do not receive this coverage. It also clearly does not fall into the guideline of WP:ROUTINE as it is not simply basic campaign coverage or something of the like. The reliability and independence of the subject does not appear to be in question, so that seems to fit the criteria as well. Based on these, it should certainly be presumed to be notable. If there is a reason why the presumption should not stand here that can certainly be argued, but I think based on the criteria the presumption is there. User:Enos733 do you know of any similar pages which have been deleted in the AfD? T--User:Illinoiswiki10 (User talk:Illinoiswiki10 / Special:Contributions/Illinoiswiki10 / 16:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Some examples WP:Articles for deletion/Christopher Seeley (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Sam Juhl, and WP:Articles for deletion/Terence Smith (politician) --Enos733 (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Being the youngest person to hold an otherwise non-notable office is not a notability claim that confers an automatic presumption of notability — school board trustees do not get Wikipedia articles just for being school board trustees, and being the youngest trustee on the board does not make him more notable than his other colleagues in and of itself. None of Wikipedia's inclusion standards confer any special status on being the youngest person to achieve something in and of itself — the thing they achieved still has to clear a notability test on its face, and if it doesn't then age doesn't confer a free notability boost. And there's no WP:GNG pass here either, as the sourcing here is far too strongly dependent on blogs and purely routine local coverage in the local media — every school board member who exists at all could always show this much local coverage. And of the two sources which do expand beyond the purely local, one contains a mere blurb's worth of information about him in a "potpourri of many topics" sort of article, and thus isn't substantive coverage of him, while the other is an op-ed where he's the bylined author and not the subject — so neither of those sources is contributing anything to making him more notable than the norm for a school board trustee. For an officeholder at this level of government, the sourcing has to show him as significantly more notable than the norm before he clears GNG in lieu of failing NPOL — but the sourcing here isn't showing that at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Leahy isn't just the youngest school board member, he is the youngest elected official in the state. This lends enough notability to give this article a chance. The page is less than a month old. Editors may be able to find additional sources to strengthen notability by GNG, without the prospect of deletion circling overhead.--Libertyguy (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Being youngest is not among our defining notability criteria here in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Being the youngest elected official in the entire state isn't a notability criterion either. Our notability criteria for political officeholders are based on whether the level of office held satisfies NPOL or not, and give no quarter to the age at which they happened to get elected. Even in those one or two oddball situations where a small town has elected a mayor who was literally a child, what makes them potentially notable enough for a Wikipedia article is whether or not they pass WP:GNG because an abnormally deep volume of media coverage resulted from how unusual that is — but if solid media coverage doesn't materialize to confer a GNG pass, then their age itself doesn't create any sort of inclusion freebie that would exempt them from having to pass GNG just because of their age. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete "Leahy was elected with 28% of the vote, or 131 votes, in an uncontested election with four candidates on the ballot." suggests that even contemporaneous press coverage because of his age may not be sufficient to establish notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. He certainly may be the youngest person to be elected to this role, but it is still to an non significant role,as per Bearcat (talk) So no page for you! :-) Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and subsequently WP:GNG. Being the youngest doesn't make him notable. As he has failed WP:POLITICIAN, the higher standard of notability in WP:BIO must be applied, and there is no automatic presumption of being youngest within that standard, automatically conferring notability, hence he fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2017 (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.