Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Lafazan

Go ahead and delete it. No reason to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.218.195 (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Josh Lafazan

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

Local county legislator fails WP:NPOL. Remove the primary and unreliable sources and there is nothing significant besides minor, hyperlocal and run-of-the-mill coverage. czar 05:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York.  czar  05:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: WP:AVOIDCOI, I am the original creator of this article. The article's subject received widespread attention in 2012 as the youngest elected official to every be elected to a school board in NY, which is why it was created in the first place. WP:NPOL's second bullet point includes "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage," which I cannot see how this subject does not fit this point. WP:GNG states essentially the same. and this subject has received plenty of coverage, both good and bad. The run-of-the-mill page referenced is an essay, not policy, and once again, I am unsure how this fits. The majority of sources on that article are non-primary, and are written by a range of sources. This can be improved per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, not deletion. BRES2773 (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I apologize to even bring this up, however this page's existence was not questioned for several years until now, the time of the subject's campaign for higher office. BRES2773 (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading the footnote on the part you quoted. Routine local coverage of routine local politician activities is not exceptional or even significant press coverage. Otherwise we'd have articles on any local legislator who is covered in their local paper. czar  12:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The county level of office does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL #2, and people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates for higher office either. In order to get an article for being a county legislator, it isn't enough to have some coverage in the local media, because every county legislator in every county can always show that — a county legislator's media coverage would have to nationalize, building a case that he could be seen as significantly more nationally notable than most other county legislators, before it could earn him inclusion in Wikipedia. And no, "youngest person to do a not otherwise notable thing" still isn't a notability freebie either. So no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins election to Congress, but he doesn't automatically get an article just for being a candidate in a primary and he doesn't automatically get an article just for serving at the county level of government. Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep satifies GNG, signifcant coverage independent of subject. There is NO policy about being significantly more nationally notable than most other county legislators; that's simple non-Wikipeia made up stuff. That Newsday is hyper-local is a disingenuous claim. Djflem (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There most very definitely is such a rule. Politicians at the county level of office are not all deemed "inherently" notable just for existing as local officeholders — but since politicians at the county level of office can always show some local coverage and thus claim that they had passed WP:GNG and were thus exempted from having to be measured against NPOL at all, our established consensus that politicians at the county level of office are not all "inherently" notable would be entirely meaningless, because no county-level politician in any county would ever fail to gain that exemption if that were how it worked.
 * So, since county-level politicians are not notable by default, that means that to actually attain notability a county-level politician does have to show a credible reason why they should be viewed as more significant than most other county-level politicians. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Most of the coverage appears local in nature, but there has been some significant coverage from major outlets:, , . Admittedly, two out of three of these are from NYC, so they might be close enough to be considered routine local coverage. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * NYT is fine, of course, but NY Post is a generally unreliable source and the Jerusalem Post article is one long quote—it's a primary source. If there were three articles like the NYT's there wouldn't be an issue, but there aren't. czar  18:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A proper BEFORE would have revealed this one: . Newsday coverage in article also significant. Djflem (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's literally discussed in the last comment. Also that Newsday, a regional daily, covers local candidates from that region is unremarkable, yes. czar  19:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * More idependent significant (easily found):
 * An author bio in an essay collection is neither independent nor significant coverage. czar  20:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Which of linked guidelines are specifically referring to? Djflem (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * An author bio or an interview is not coverage that is independent of the subject, because it comes straight from him. The general notability guideline says that the coverage needs to be independent of the topic and in-depth. This is grasping at straws. czar  00:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * He is not the author of the book; so it's about him, not "straight from him". Djflem (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Since this discussion started, a new (independent, in-depth) non-local, non-run-of-the-mill article about Lafazan has been published in a reliable source: . userdude 18:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC), edited 19:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Coverage from the New York Times, the Jerusalem Post, and the Intercept (spanning three years) indicates that Lafazan isn't solely of local or fleeting interest, and his status as the youngest elected official in New York State may be another reason a page for him isn't WP:MILL. Hatman31 (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep significant coverage, notable. Andre🚐 04:42, 21 August 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.