Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James M. Carroll


 * 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. The SandDoctor Talk 04:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

James M. Carroll

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable local politician that has only been covered by local press. Falls short of meeting the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:NPOL. I did my best to find other articles which cover this person's life and could not find any, apart from a couple mentions routine hyper-local articles on politics discussing the board instead of the person. If he's still alive, this contains BLP issues as well. He does have a common name, though, so if he doesn't fail WP:GNG as conclusively as it appears, please ping me so I can have a look. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NPOL and there isn't anything coverage wise that puts him in WP:GNG territory. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Serving on a county council is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the existence of two or three pieces of local coverage in the local media is not enough to actually get a local politician over the bar that he actually has to clear. GNG is not just "anybody who can be shown to have gotten their name into any newspaper twice or more for any reason" — it also tests for the depth of coverage, the geographic range of coverage, and the context of what the person is getting coverage for. Every local politician everywhere can always show a couple of hits in their local media, so that's not enough to make a local politician notable in and of itself — "significant press coverage", for the purposes of NPOL #2, means you have to show much more than just the bare minimum of what every local politician can always show: deeper coverage (e.g. he was so locally important that somebody actually wrote and published a full book-length biography of him), more coverage (e.g. dozens of media hits and not just three, enabling the article to cover his political career in a really substantive and detailed way), and/or wider coverage (e.g. coverage that expands well beyond just the local media) than most other county councillors have. A county councillor is not notable enough for Wikipedia just because you can show two or three hits of routine local election reporting to verify an article that just reads like a thinly-veiled rewrite of his own "staff" profile on the council's own self-published website — to make a county councillor notable enough for inclusion here, you have to be able to write a lot more substance and cite a lot more sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete serving at a legislative level below a state legislature is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage, doesn't meet any notability guidelines.Jacona (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete  Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPOL. Just a local politician, nothing in article or online to show notability. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2019 (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.