Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Ritterman


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Ritterman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Local activist. No in-depth coverage on him from independent reliable sources. Lots of brief mentions. Fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * He has tons of coverage in sf Chronicle and also ny Times....this is a gng notable man, if not merge into city council articleNdołkah (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per Nom, No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources.Celestina007 (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Purely local coverage in a person's own hometown media market, in exclusively local interest contexts like being president of an organization's local chapter, is not in and of itself a free pass over WP:GNG. To earn a place in Wikipedia, a person needs to have a much more nationalized claim of significance, and much more nationalized coverage for it, than just a smattering of hits in a midsized city's community hyperlocal. As I've explained to the creator in other concurrent AFD discussions on their recent work, GNG is not just "count up the media hits and keep anything that surpasses an arbitrary number" — lots of people get purely local coverage in contexts that fall below our inclusion tests, so GNG does not just consider the number of footnotes: it also tests the depth of how substantively any given source is or is not about him, the geographic range of how widely he's getting covered, and the context of what he's getting coverage for, and some types of coverage count for a lot less than others do. The New York Times hit, for example, is not about Jeff Ritterman, but just glancingly mentions his name a single time as a giver of soundbite in an article about something other than him — and that is not a type of "coverage" that bolsters his notability at all, because he is not the subject of the piece. Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete getting sound bite quoted in a newspaper is not a sign of notability, and that is all we have for Ritterman outside the local media market.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment it is not being taken into account that he invented the sugar/soda tax that passed in Berkeley and Mexico! I also found a new source here that covers him in depth here.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * One article in the local community weekly is not a magic GNG pass all by itself, and proposing local adoption of a municipal bylaw is not a notability claim. He didn't "invent" soda taxes — he just proposed Berkeley's (but not Mexico's) adoption of an idea that already existed in other places before he was even born, so he has no "inherently" notable role in the existence of the overall concept. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute here, I think the sources say he proposed and got the Mexican soda tax passes and SF Gate is the San Francisco Chronicle, The Berkeley Daily Planet and San Jose Mercury News are not bulletin boards of newsletters they are serious journalism and he is mentioned in 3 articles therein in depth, and that does meet the GNG imho.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * DeleteAs per reasons given, just doesn't meet WP:GNG.  Ravensfire  (talk) 21:10, 29 December 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.