Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John W. Mina


 * 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. I'm happy to restore and draftify upon request, if anyone is interested.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 23:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

John W. Mina

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:BIO. Routine coverage, primary. Fails WP:SIGCOV.  scope_creep Talk  16:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law,  and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Successively chief of two large law enforcement agencies. Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, successful law enforcement officer and article has good sources as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete for several reasons. First, the Keep argument made by Necrothesp is not in my opinion, a valid argument for Keep. Being the chief of a law enforcement agency is not a relevant criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. The subject would be suitable for a stand-alone article if they have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. There was a failed proposal of notability standards at WP:Law enforcement agency quite some time ago, and I cannot locate any consensus driven guideline since then. The closest applicable standard is WP:POL - not really appropriate and in any event I do not see a proper indication of notability there either. There may be a weak argument that this elected role makes the subject a politician holding state/province office, but I am not convinced that an LEO is a "politician". Likewise, they are certainly a local "political figure" if not a politician, but the significant press coverage is lacking. The second keep argument states "successful law enforcement officer". Again, invalid argument at AFD. Countless people are successful LEOs. The local constabulary in my precinct is known to almost any person you ask in the proximity, yet he has no article as he does not satisfy the notability guidelines on Wikipedia. The appropriate guideline is WP:GNG as one comment states, and the other implies with their argument of "good sourcing" so lets take a look. I will number each source below in the order they appear in the article and comment if the article passes standards or otherwise call out why it does not.
 * 1)  This source is a Sheriff's Association profile - not independent or secondary
 * 2)  Not significant coverage, routine coverage of an election in which the Sheriff was elected. Independency also in question, appears to quote original content from campaign material
 * 3)  Not as poor as some of the sources, but overall I do not consider a six sentence article to be significant.
 * 4)  Rehashing of press release
 * 5)  - Trivial mention of subject
 * 6)  - Not independent
 * 7)  - Not independent
 * 8)  - Not independent
 * 9) - Not independent
 * 10)  - Not independent
 * 11)  - Not independent
 * The article is not referenced with multiple published secondary sources that are releable and indepedent, nor can I find such sources elsewhere. Hence the subject does not meet WP:GNG and ought to be deleted. In absence of a conclusion of consensus to delete by reviewing admin, a conclusion I do understand is teneable given the 2:1 ratio, I please ask that reviewing admin to consider a relist in light of the Keep arguments being an incorrect application of WP:GNG. Simply pointing to a policy is not really an argument - sometimes it is okay in obvious cases, and occasionally I may do this myself. However this is actually a clear case of not meeting WP:GNG and so an argument for Keep in my view needs to show some sourcing or an argument substantiating a claim of meeting WP:GNG. Thanks to all, and happy to change my vote to Keep if significant coverage is shown to exist. Regards, MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is not referenced with multiple published secondary sources that are releable and indepedent, nor can I find such sources elsewhere. Hence the subject does not meet WP:GNG and ought to be deleted. In absence of a conclusion of consensus to delete by reviewing admin, a conclusion I do understand is teneable given the 2:1 ratio, I please ask that reviewing admin to consider a relist in light of the Keep arguments being an incorrect application of WP:GNG. Simply pointing to a policy is not really an argument - sometimes it is okay in obvious cases, and occasionally I may do this myself. However this is actually a clear case of not meeting WP:GNG and so an argument for Keep in my view needs to show some sourcing or an argument substantiating a claim of meeting WP:GNG. Thanks to all, and happy to change my vote to Keep if significant coverage is shown to exist. Regards, MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Necrothesp @Davidgoodheart hey to both, I was wandering if either/both please could review my analysis and change/confirm your vote to assist closing admin? Given what I found, if either/both could please provide confirmation of how the subject has been significantly covered per guidelines, would be really appreciated. Thanks to both and good day. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Draftify Notability criteria, from most specific to general: as an elected sheriff at county level can be considered a politician but fails WP:NPOL which requires statewide office. Awards listed under recognition section not significant enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. There is a lack of independent secondary sources providing significant coverage, therefore does not meet GNG. Overall, concur with MaxnaCarta and will echo the sentiment that success as law enforcement chief is not a valid keep argument; there are many chiefs of many police departments out there, and it is not clear how success is being defined here. This all has me leaning towards delete. However, I do think there is one avenue that can be explored in greater depth: Mina was police chief during the Orlando nightclub shooting. We can infer he did well on that, because he was named by USDOJ as a member of a 9-pax committee that will review the law enforcement response in the Uvalde massacre. (Note: news about his appointment to the committee is only good for a passing mention in routine coverage.) Now, a single event does not automatically confer notability on Mina. But, there could be WP:SIGCOV to be found by delving deeper into this, since the event is no doubt of interest for academic study and analysis. In what way was Mina a "successful" chief? Under his leadership, was there anything that he did differently compared to others that factored into the response to the Pulse shooting? This could include things like instituting department policy, developing training, etc. beforehand as well as decisions made during the incident response. Basically, we're looking for a widely recognized contribution in the field of policing and law enforcement, as assessed by credentialed experts in that field. Therefore, draftify this article to give time for interested editors to do a more thorough search for potential sources that could support notability in this way. To start off, let me offer: We can't reasonably go through 120 pages of report and 50+ more in appendices as part of this AfD, but let's give people a chance to have a go at it. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why draftify? This is an WP:ATD when we can expect an improvement of the article over the next six months, and no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment That references is the man at work and is completley primary with no historical depth or value. There is no basis for draftifying here as there is no coverage. The WP:BEFORE doesn't show anything and reference review above confirms that. Fails WP:SIGCOV. That is the only standard here.   scope_creep Talk  22:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I am aware that there are various issues with law enforcement in the US but the out-of-hand dismissal makes me uncomfortable. Use of derogatory slang "the man" connotes sweeping overgeneralization treating the entire law enforcement system in aggregate, with the suggestion that the federal level DOJ is incapable of making independent assessments about the work of a municipal level police department. I offer the DOJ report as a starting point to investigate if there is any widely recognized contribution that could support notability. To be clear, I am not asserting that the report's existence alone is sufficient evidence for that, nor that it necessarily contains such evidence. If Mina is given credit for something but it's only because he "just happened to be the one in charge" at the time rather than for doing something that had material consequence, that doesn't really count either.
 * Sure, existing refs in the article don't show notability, but I am not confident we have conclusively ruled it out either: I pointed out at least one reasonable path, albeit it may take longer to fully delve into it than I feel we have time for here. The difficulty with sourcing for the subject of this article is that there is a large amount of passing/routine coverage due to public-facing PR aspects of sheriff and police chief work; none of that is useful for establishing notability, but the sheer volume of it can overwhelm, making it harder to locate actually usable sources. We should not punish for that, and I see no harm in draftification to provide a reprieve that allows time and opportunity for a more thorough search, guided in a potentially more fruitful direction. This is not a WP:MUSTBESOURCES keep vote — if efforts prove futile or no one bothers, I would not be opposed to a subsequent MfD or G13 deletion. —2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow. @Scope creep was not making commentary on the police force mate. Reading too much into this. It isn’t a personal attack on anything, the subject just doesn’t meet notability and being a good cop isn’t justification for inclusion on Wikipedia. No notability, no article (subject to rare exceptions which do not apply here) MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2022 (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.