Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe McCallum


 * 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. Putting aside the arguments for inherent notability, which appear to have no basis in WP policy or guidelines, and those about the size/prominence of Newark, which I assume are based on WP:POLOUTCOMES but aren't really relevant in the absence of in-depth treatment in reliable sources, there seems to be a general consensus that at this time there doesn't exist enough significant coverage to support a biography. Deor (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Joe McCallum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Local mayors are not inherently notable, there is no evidence in the article that he is nationally notable. This article should be deleted Wayne Jayes (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: largest city in New Jersey.Djflem (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * He's not actually a mayor, so "largest city in New Jersey" has nothing to do with it. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not even a mayor, he's just a city councillor — the nominator may have misunderstood why Newark mayoral election, 2014 is being linked to in the article (he was merely on the council candidates slate of the person who actually is the actual mayor, Ras Baraka.) Due to their notability being exclusively local in nature, however, city councillors don't pass WP:POLITICIAN except in extraordinary circumstances (i.e. internationally famous metropolitan city with a population in the millions, or national recognition that extends beyond his own city alone) that haven't been met here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Newark is not large enough for its councillors to be inherently notable, although its mayor probably would be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Of local interest only. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep Councilors of the largest city in New Jersey should be inherently notable.--TM 11:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they shouldn't. Wikipedia grants notability to city councillors in internationally famous "world cities" with populations in the millions; it does not grant a presumption of notability to city councillors in every place that merely happens to be the largest city in its own state. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But Daneek Miller is OK because he's from Queens and Emma Mitts because she's from Chicago? Djflem (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Read my comment again: internationally famous world cities with populations in the millions. That class of cities includes New York City and Chicago both; it does not include Newark. The rule is that city councillors are only considered notable enough for Wikipedia if you can make a credible case that their notability extends beyond their own city to the national or international level — so city councillors are considered notable just for being city councillors only if the city is large and famous enough that its municipal politics are inherently of national or international interest. (Absent that, they have to personally become national or international figures for reasons beyond their office itself, and don't get to keep Wikipedia articles just for being city councillors.) Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I read and understood your first comment and the two others in which you repeated yourself, no need to again. Please read the question again, click on the articles, and see how the " big famous rule" is working out for contributions to Wikipedia.Djflem (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no reason council members in any city should be inherently notable, considering the actual size of Newark, it definitely does not pass. The better test is, do we even have published resources to create articles on ALL councilors back to 1900? If we don't, just creating them on the current ones will lead to way to much presentist bias in the project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While creating articles about new new city council members may appear recentism, it can be an impetus to investigate the question you are are proposing, are there sources for info about former members. If one views San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the grid there invites the possibility of being filled in, and that can and maybe will happen one- by-one, i.e. as the individual articles are written.Djflem (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bearcat. We should consider a City a "world city" for the purposes of this guideline when the city consist of a population north of one million and is internationally recognizable. In the present case, Newark fails both criteria. This would not preclude a subject from passing WP:GNG rather than an assumption of notability. Enos733 (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So Daneek Miller, Emma Mitts, and Katy Tang are inherently more notable and the articles about them make a more valuable contribution to Wikipedia? Djflem (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Though the article needs expansion, there is a credible claim of notability backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Addition of the further available source material focusing on McCallum would only further advance the case. I disagree with the claim of inherent notability for city council members; while the election to a council position in a city of the renown of Newark is a credible claim to notability, the coverage in sources is necessary. I also take issue with the claim that there is a world city / million-person minimum, which sets an arbitrary threshold. We seem to have consensus on the notability of members of the New York City Council, but due to a persistent presentist bias we don't even have articles for every President of the City Council, let alone any certainty on the existence of "published resources to create articles on ALL councilors back to 1900" for New York City. Rules of thumb are useful guides, but that's all they are. Alansohn (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The article doesn't say much beyond "he was elected, then assumed his seat" and a search for sources just turns up passing references like this. Tiller54 (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, local council members for any city can be notable if there is substantial, reliable and non-routine coverage of their activities in reliable sources. In the case of McCallum, I can't find any evidence of that sort of coverage, and Newark is not a large enough city to justify an exception to that rule.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:33, 13 July 2014 (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.