Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph P. Watkins


 * 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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. North America1000 01:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Joseph P. Watkins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Recreation of recently PRODed paid promotional article. PROD reasons still apply: highly questionable notability, sources look good on the surface but are mostly tangential, primary, or accurately cite information that does not in any way show notability. WP:TNT even if he were notable, though Google/GNews is not promising at all for prospective RSes that are actually about him. If notability can't be turned up, I recommend SALT - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's clearly been a very professional WP:REFBOMBing job done here, but none of the cited sources, nor any that I can find elsewhere, meets the required standard of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. A quick search at The Philadelphia Inquirer site turns up some articles that might indicate notability: Search results
 * Political action committee head named to guide Chester Upland's recovery
 * Judge: Embattled Chester Upland chief can keep job
 * State calls for removal of Chester Upland receiver
 * Joe Watkins quits as receiver of Chester Upland schools
 * The author(s) of this promotional bio should be aware that if this is kept, Wikipedia should cover this, to have a balanced article. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw a pile of these. It's possible this stuff could amount to enough coverage for GNG, but basically in political terms he's a party worker of decades' experience but little evidence there's readers for an article or content about the subject to do a BLP; anything that was actually a notable incident should be in the relevant article, and mostly these aren't incidents that were themselves notable - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * FWIW, he briefly appeared tonight on NBC Nightly News, as a "Republican Strategist" giving his take on Donald Trump's latest statement on the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Hmm, Category:Political strategists. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * More specifically, Category:American political consultants and Category:Pennsylvania political consultants (PA is the only state to have such a category). wbm1058 (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Republican Strategist" Joe Watkins had another soundbite on tonight's NBC Nightly News, this time to opine on Donald Trump's support for "stop and frisk". wbm1058 (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Making no comment on the current content of the article, it looks like the subject meets WP:GNG, appearing as a primary source in multiple news articles, TV news programs, and so forth. This makes him notable.  Cleanup is certainly advised, and there may be room for some aggressive cutting, but as a political analyst, his opinions seem to be notable enough for the news to go into depth about them, so he should be notable enough to appear on Wikipedia. Fieari (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page and online resume. "...appearing as a primary source in multiple news articles, TV news programs, and so forth. This makes him notable" is not reflected in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This does not make a subject notable; WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources does, but it's missing from this page. Accepting such promotional articles on insignificant subjects is not in the best interest of the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 20:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep There seems enough here in the way of sources for a decent article. He was in charge of cleaning up Chester's notorious schools. I might have to start this as a stub from scratch though, since it is in dreadful shape. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 15:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:OUTCOMES. Lots of little refs don't matter. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what outcome you are referring to. Have you actually examined the references? They are generally in-depth and easily satisfy GNG. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 21:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep sources suffice to meet WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:GNG. per good sources. the shape of the article overall has no baring on its notability.BabbaQ (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic   Nightfury  07:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep no WP:POV violation that I can see. Subject meets WP:GNG through sources already pointed out.  Just because someone is in a political party doesn't mean that the page should be deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2016 (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.