Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin P. Chavous


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Antigng (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Kevin P. Chavous

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionably notable and improvable as the best my searches was this, this, this and this. Not only would the current article need to be changed and improved, the current version is simply not comprehensible as to why we should keep this. Pinging past users (author),  and  and also users who seem to be interested with these subjects, ,  and. SwisterTwister  talk  21:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Established practice is that members of the Council of the District of Columbia are notable. There are articles on all other current and past members. --see  [List of members of the Council of the District of Columbia]]. The analogy is with the city council of a   large city, and with a state legislature-- the Council is neither of these, but unique, but the analogy is sufficient.  DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * DGG is correct that Washington, D.C. is in the narrow range of internationally important global cities for which we do accept the city councillors as effectively getting an automatic WP:NPOL pass — but SwisterTwister also has a valid point in that even a no-brainer keep, like a President of the United States, still wouldn't get to keep an entirely unsourced article. We have seen hoax articles created in the past about people who didn't actually hold the political office they were claimed to have held (cf. Articles for deletion/James Snipplet), so we can't just let an article sit on zero sourcing just because it claims an NPOL-satisfying office — some actual sourcing does still have to be present in the article to properly verify the truth of the claims therein. A notability claim is never, in and of itself, the thing that actually gets a person over a notability criterion — the quality of sourcing that can be provided to support the notability claim is how a person passes the inclusion test, not the mere fact that an unsourced claim of notability has been asserted. So I'm willing to switch to the keep side if the article sees sourcing improvement by closure — but it's a delete, per WP:NUKEANDPAVE, if it still looks like this seven days from now. Albeit without prejudice against future recreation if somebody can redo it properly. Keep per Tim1965's significant, and very barnstar-worthy, content and sourcing improvements — from zero references to 59 references in a matter of a few hours is a work of art. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep — The article is already vastly improved after just a couple hours' work. (I will probably finish it in a day or two; real life intervenes early this week.) - Tim1965 (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's finished. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - thanks for the ping - city council members of world-class cities such as DC are automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2015 (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.