Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Márquez


 * 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 (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

John Márquez

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable politician; outdated article. Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough. Split from this AfD  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: None of the Google Books or Scholar references to "John Marquez" are to this John Marquez  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep - One of a series of cut-and-paste deletion nominations by this nominator. No indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed in this case. I also find it offensive and contrary to policy that independent, published coverage in the local press is deemed not "independent enough." This is not NewYorkCitypedia or Londonpedia or Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This vote should be retracted, as it's clear the editor hasn't even bothered to read the article, and is voting to keep a load of cruft on this Wiki. This article, and all the other ones nominated in a similar matter, are permastubs created in a fly-by-night manner and should have been deleted years ago.  And it's by no means offensive to say local news doesn't count.  There are many items that are required in policy and/or supported by the consensus of editors.  What's offensive is your procedural keep vote  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See also above comment about lack of Google Books or Scholar articles  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails to meet WP:Politician, and doesn't have enough significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify otherwise. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I added some info to the article but I didn't really find a lot of coverage about him. However, he was the first Latino on the council, and he served for 23 years, so those facts might count toward notability. I do object to your rote claim that the article is "outdated". I personally updated this article on December 3, adding information and references. You keep accusing others of "not even bothering to read the article", but I would say you are even more guilty of this, for failing to recognize the improvements that have been made in some of the articles since your original mass nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a bad faith nomination and they are not permastubs, the only fly by night editing I see is the same exact copy and paste rational for a half dozen articles. I see no good faith effort at trying to add to these articles. He was there for 23 years and he was the first hispanic, he also served on numerous government boards so this man was read about and featured in the paper for years, wikipedia is not paper and he seems generally notable here. I also find it offensive that someone would demand someone retract their opinion.Luciferwildcat (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Are you kidding me?  How many minor politicians from Richmond, California am I going to have to work my through here today?  A one-term vice mayor?  It just doesn't cut it, even if he was the first Latino on the City Council (unsourced, but plausible). --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Two sources have now been added verifying that he was the first Latino on the council. BTW he was a one-term vice mayor but a 23 year councilmember. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * comment sources can be found if you procedural keeped this one.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, that's not what procedural keep is for...  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  03:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Mayors of cities with over a hundred thousand people in them, get ample coverage for their activities.  D r e a m Focus  18:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, Marquez was never mayor...  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  21:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, 100,000 is a purely arbitrary number. Does that mean the mayor of a city like Richmond with 104,000 is significant, an a mayor of a city with 96,000 isn't?  It doesn't work that way  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  21:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A number has to be set, that as good as anyone. And this AFD wasn't a mayor unlike a few others you nominated at once, which I had posted in.  My mistake.   D r e a m Focus  21:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why I nommed them in different AFDs...because some were mayor and some weren't  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  22:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep As per Carrite, there are concerns about this nomination and WP:BEFORE.  Further, I see no theoretical possibility that this article would be outright deleted.  It has an edit history with good faith edits, and there is no case to be made to delete the redirect.  I found that the San Francisco Chronicle, a major regional newspaper, provides coverage of Richmond politics and has an accessible archive, and I added two refs to the article.  As far as wp:notability, even though not a mayor, there is plenty of extra material here for the topic to rise to an equivalent level and be "worthy of notice": latino, 23 years in office, ran for mayor, in office during a vote-buying scandal investigated by the FBI, vice-mayor, and given recognition by the California legislature.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating, BEFORE doesn't necessarily have to be followed 100% of the time; especially in a fairly obvious deletion case like this where the subject fails two notability guidelines, POLITICIAN and ANYBIO. And what do the edits being in good faith have to do with anything?  They don't...if a non-notable article is created with good faith edits, it can still be deleted.  "Given recognition by the California legislature"...that means nothing.  They can give recognition to a person for making Eagle Scout or that Jovember 32nd is Eat a Cold Pizza Day.  The Legislature's recognition does in no way imply notability.  Finally, I agree with what Reyk said.  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  01:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There really already is a threashhold, it is widely agreed that 100,000 is a major indicator of a major city. As per the United States Census Bureau, any map gives 100K plus the 2nd biggest dot also by the way. This is a major port city of 100,000 people and as such a major city has enough press about it and size and its own institutions which more resemble a city state and that is what makes its politicians notable. A small town has one cityhall/postoffice/firepolicestation/library/community room/building or two tops, major cities have several branches of all of these things and major infrastructure like regional or international airports or seaports, pipeline terminals, magnet hospitals, industry, universities, subway stations etc. Richmond has most of these as most major cities do.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, this has to do with preserving the edit history, which is no longer useful if it gets deleted, this is from WP:ATD, or WP:Deletion policy. WP:GNG is always an applicable guideline, and I don't see that the new claims that ANYBIO and POLITICIAN fail are matched with supporting evidence.  I've provided reliable references from one of the most well-known newspapers in the US.  I don't know why you think the California legislature's recognition doesn't contribute to notability, they are showing that the topic "attracts attention" and is "worthy of notice".  Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment- can we focus on the article rather than attacking the nominator or quibbling about the form of the nomination? I see many of the more obnoxious red herring keep arguments in this debate:
 * - "Hasn't followed WP:Before". Doesn't matter even if that's true. WP:BEFORE is not a policy. It's not even a guideline.
 * - "Same copy & paste rationale as other nominations"- If there are many similar articles, all suffering from the same flaws, then it's reasonable to expect the nominations to be similar or identical. Demanding the nominator word the same argument in multiple different ways is a meaningless artificial hurdle. I don't think I need to point out the hypocrisy of responding to a copy&paste deletion nomination with a copy&paste "wikilawyer keep" vote.
 * - "This nomination is bad faith". Beneath contempt, frankly.
 * I don't see much validity in any of the keep arguments so far, and a lot of misdirection and posturing. Reyk  YO!  01:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This topic appears to pass WP:GNG, per the availability of reliable sources that address the topic in detail. Check out this additional search for Google News:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a version of cut-and-paste votes you've pasted on a number of articles of varying notability in the last day or two. I note above that there isn't a single Books or Scholar reference to this guy, and most of the Google references are to other people with the same name, so I consider your !vote quite dubious  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to have a copy and paste response to spurious mass nominations. Google news and scholar items that you may or may not have found are irrelevant, the actual reliable sources that are plentiful and have been found and slowly added to the article are the merits on which this AfD should be judged.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – This was NOT a copy/paste !vote whatsoever, it was adding a find sources template to this AfD discussion, in which the availability of reliable sources qualifies topic notability. Notice how I customized the search with the subject's name and the city name "Richmond", which wasn't copy/paste whatsoever. A bogus critique of this !vote (by User:Purplebackpack89). Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then how come it bears striking resemblance to other votes you made the same day, including ones that didn't have to do with non-notable councilmen in podunk cities?  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:11, 14 December 2011 (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.
 * 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.