Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter


 * 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. This is a mess. To the extent this confusing discussion is supposed to be about the redirect now at Kirby Delauter, it belongs at WP:RFD. To the extent it is supposed to be about the page now at Draft:Kirby Delauter, it belongs at WP:MFD if deletion is desired, or at WP:DRV if restoration is desired. (This is "articles for deletion", not "articles for recreation"). In other words, nothing about this belongs in an AfD. And to top it off, even if I would be certain everybody on this page was talking about the same content, and understood "keep" etc. to mean the same thing, I still couldn't find a consensus on the merits here. In other words, there's nothing to do as a result of whatever this discussion was.  Sandstein  20:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Kirby Delauter

 * Please consult Draft:Kirby Delauter as the article version subject to this AFD discussion.


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Note: To AFD "voters", please focus your attention on Draft:Kirby Delauter and express your vote to Keep, Delete, Redirect, etc., in terms of that version.  There was an article in mainspace, but currently Kirby Delauter redirects to Frederick County, Maryland.  A vote of "Keep" means to adopt the draft;  "Redirect" means to keep the redirect in place (or to redirect to a different target);  and "Delete" means to remove even the redirect in place now. -- do  ncr  am  20:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This is where AFD discussion about Kirby Delauter is happening.  Before this AFD was opened, there was an "informal" discussion about this topic at Informal Afd on Administrator's Noticeboard, which is still available (has not been archived) as of now.  No further comments were posted there after editor 's first posted here (in the first post after this page was started by, and after Cunard suggested there that AFD should be done here.  I'm boldly asserting this is indeed where AFD discussion is going on, and striking out suggestion to discuss there instead.  Please do discuss here! -- do  ncr  am  20:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * When posting the above notes, I struck out the following request by NE Ent. NE Ent has objected and unstruck it, okay... --doncram
 * Please see Informal Afd on Administrator's Noticeboard. It is requested all comments be made there. NE Ent 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry, but the AFD discussion really is going on here, not at the "informal AFD". There has been no more discussion there, and there is new discussion and new !votes below, including by NE Ent.  So anyone arriving here, please join discussion below. -- do  ncr  am  04:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Link to the draft article: Draft:Kirby Delauter. Link to the DRV: Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8. Link to the WP:AN thread: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270. This AfD should be closed on or after 24 March 2015 since it was not formally started until 17 March 2015. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Why this Wikipedia article does not harm Kirby Delauter. I reviewed the first ten pages of a Google search for "Kirby Delauter". Roughly 97 out of the 100 results were about Delauter's January 2015 incident. Only three of the results (all past the first five results) did not discuss the incident. Those three results were published by the subject himself (his Twitter page, his Facebook page, and his county biography). As wrote: "when you search for Kirby Delauter you get as the first thing in the search which intentionally and unabashedly puts him in the stocks.  No Wikipedia article does that." As  wrote: "When Delauter gets googled, the choice is not whether his stupid comes up, but whether it comes up here, we were can at least attempt to provide a low drama, low snark description of the event, or some other site, which is likely to be less kind." I add that we can also put the event in context by providing a neutral, balanced overview of Kirby Delauter's life as a businessman and a politician. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Here is what I wrote at Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8 about why WP:BLP1E is not applicable: "The subject has received coverage in three aspects of his life: (1) as president of the construction company W.F. Delauter & Son, (2) as a member of Frederick Board of County Commissioners, and (3) as a member of the Frederick County Council. WP:BLP1E's first point says the policy applies '[i]f reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.' Delauter has received significant coverage prior to this event; here is a small sample:  Notability (people), says: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." The Baltimore Sun is a major newspaper, the largest circulation newspaper in the state of Maryland. It cannot be dismissed as being a "small, local newspaper". Prior to this incident, Delauter arguably passed Notability (people). After this incident, he clearly does. I have created a draft article at Draft:Kirby Delauter to discuss the three aspects of his life. I included the incident in the "Frederick County Council" section because it happened while he was (and still is) a county council member.. Because the event takes up a small part of the article, I do not believe the draft violates Neutral point of view. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The subject is notable as a county official for having received significant biographical coverage from The Baltimore Sun, the largest newspaper in his state (link to the article). Most county officials do not receive significant coverage from the largest newspaper in their state. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Request: Please put an AfD tag on Kirby Delauter. I cannot do so because it is fully protected. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Since "Kirby Delauter" is a redirect, the AfD notice would likely be better served by placing it on the draft IMO. — Ched : ?  18:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At Talk:Kirby Delauter I put an Admin help request for the AFD notice to be put on the redirect, and I put a facsimile AFD notice on the Draft:Kirby Delauter page (it can't be a regular AFD tag because that causes errors, for not being in mainspace). And at the wp:AN discussion (still unarchived), I put notice of this AFD also.  So notice is out there. -- do  ncr  am  22:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The opening comment I believe refers to WP:NOHARM, in which it also states: As for articles that do not conform to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. ...
 * Therefore I must regretfully maintain my keep redirect and delete draft !vote per WP:BLP1E, WP:NPOL and IMO it fails WP:GNG. I do applaud Cunard for his research writing, and efforts; and I acknowledge that he was able to find information regarding W.F. Delauter & Son, and Delauter's personal life.  Still - I just don't see it as being notable by our standards on wiki.  Sorry. — Ched :  ?  18:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not using WP:NOHARM as the basis for keeping the article. I am responding to this comment: "I don't like to close as 'keep salted', since there's interest among non-admins in reading it and taking stock of it first, per Diogenes above. Also I don't like to close it as 'unsalt' (=recreate in some form), since that would mean the article was in mainspace for probably at least a week, and we're not in the business of shaming people for doing a stupid (not heinous, not illegal, but stupid) thing. As most of you know, the wikipedia bio is normally the first google hit on a person, and being a politician (albeit a low-profile one, without notability outside the one event), Kirby Delauter may well get googled. We're not and should not be the village stocks." There is no "shaming" here. Wikipedia is not being the "village stocks" here. Why do you believe that a subject who has received significant biographical coverage from The Baltimore Sun, the largest newspaper in his state (link to the article), prior to the January 2015 incident fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NPOL, and WP:GNG? The guidelines do not say what you think or want them to say. Cunard (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah .. ok, gotcha on the "noharm" thing. Well, I just don't see anything that makes him notable is all.  At best, that ill-considered remark may have given him his 15 minutes of fame, but I don't see anything beyond that (BLP1E) which makes the article encyclopedic.  Lots of people have their own business - but the guy who owns the local hardware store isn't going to get an article here.  To me, no matter how much lipstick you put on it, in the end, it's still just the other white meat that goes great with eggs at breakfast.  Sure, maybe the "Draft" isn't vandalized right now, but once it's in mainspace - I think it will be a magnet for it.  I could find plenty of articles that use the term "Lewinsky" as a term for oral sex - but it would never stand up as an article. (although that Santorum one managed - but I digress).  The bottom line for me is that he just doesn't pass muster on the notability end.  Hey - if it gets kept - more power to you, but I can't support a "keep" vote in my own mind.  Sorry. — Ched :  ?  20:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is a term of art on Wikipedia that is defined as whether "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". What definition of "notability" are you using when you write "I just don't see anything that makes him notable is all"? Are you using the definition in Notability or your own personal definition? Sure, maybe the "Draft" isn't vandalized right now, but once it's in mainspace - I think it will be a magnet for it. – articles are not deleted just because they could be magnets for vandalism. If editors vandalize the article, the editors can be blocked and the article can be semi-protected or full-protected as necessary. In this case, I would support preemptive protection if an admin is willing to add it. Cunard (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep [changed from Keep] (i.e. move the Draft version to replace the redirect now in mainspace).  The draft seems well-sourced although a bit longer than an article about a local councilman deserves.  Length and other faults, if any, in the draft can be addressed by editing.  The subject is of note mostly because of his statement that he did not wish to be named by the local newspaper, but that's a pretty big story and it seems to be presented fairly in this draft, and there's other information about him too, so I don't see it as a one-event BLP violation.  Seems okay to have this article, and it's a service to readers.  I think it should be shorter, but kept in mainspace. -- do  ncr  am  22:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: I looked into this issue just now, after the councilman has apologized for his comments/request.  The closer of this AFD, and !voters here, may want to consider comments given in the wp:AN discussion and in the wp:DRV discussion linked from near the top here, but some/all of those might have been stated before the councilman apologized and/or without consideration of anything like the current draft article. -- do  ncr  am  22:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if there could be an event article or coverage of the event within some other article, maybe that would be better than an article about the person. Redirecting to the government article seems incorrect.  There would have to be some appropriate discussion about the councilman and the editorial and the wide coverage.  Some other arguments below are pretty good, too.  (However, I am not completely clear which policy, out of the list of policies suggested, 209.211.131.181 thinks is most relevant. :)  ).  Could the event here be covered within some other article, like perhaps a list-article about First Amendment-related dramas? -- do  ncr  am  03:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete redirect, delete draft, and protect both per longstanding content policies such as WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP1E, and WP:BLP1E - not to mention WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP1E. Boy, that guy really put his foot in it one time, didn't he? That newspaper editorial was hilarious! However, Wikipedia has longstanding rules against "biographical" articles that only commemorate transient Internet mockery - for very good reasons. Mr. Delauter is notorious only for the one screwup that everyone knows about, and the list of incidental facts in the current draft doesn't change that. If the padding in the draft were posted with someone else's name as the title, it would end up deleted as a resume. Using it to pad this particular article doesn't save it from being a WP:BLP1E violation; only independent coverage of other things Mr/ Delauter would be notable for can do that.


 * Incidentally, I cannot help but observe that the very people who have kept this issue alive by objecting to a supposed "out-of-process" speedy deletion of the original article, a supposed "out-of-process" closure of a deletion review, and a supposed "out-of-process" closure of a discussion about the closure of the deletion review sought to avoid deletion of the reposted draft by pointing the deletion page to an out-of-process discussion under their control. Such actions can have no good effect, but only serve to turn the topic into a running sore. If this discussion fails to support recreation of an article - as I hope that it does - then that should be that, and the filibustering should end. If Mr. Delauter does something independently notable, then there will be a reason to reconsider, but not now. Let it end. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to Frederick News-Post
 * 1) Kirby Delauter is not notable because of a facebook post. They're notable because that facebook post has been discussed on NPR, Washington Post, Huffington Post, CNN, BBC, Gawker, Baltimore Sun, Washington Times, Business Insider, Newsweek, NBC, MSNBC, Slate, Politico, Jezebel, Chicago Tribune, Daily Mail, Fox News etc. etc. and so on.
 * 2) While the rogue / IAR admin's thought process: we're not in the business of shaming people for doing a stupid ... Kirby Delauter may well get googled. We're not and should not be the village stocks.  is laudable, the ship has sailed / horse is out of the barn / insert favorite cliche. When Delauter gets googled, the choice is not whether his stupid comes up, but whether it comes up here, we were can at least attempt to provide a low drama, low snark description of the event, or some other site, which is likely to be less kind. It is not our mission to create the world of knowledge, but to reflect it, and that includes folks whom become notable because of stupid; they are not our first priority: As User talk:Alan Liefting rightly illustrates: It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia. We currently provide coverage for folks who are notable for one stupid event: e.g. Rosie Ruiz, Mathias Rust, Mary Kay Letourneau, Margaret Mary Ray.
 * 3) Therefore Kirby Delauter should exist as either an article or as a redirect to an article that documents why is notable. I suggest Frederick News-Post, the employer of the reporter Kirby threatened to sue and the publisher of the editorial reply that "went viral" . NE Ent 23:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Therefore Kirby Delauter should exist as either an article or as a redirect to an article that documents why is notable. – NE Ent, would it be better to reframe this article to be about the event (like Streisand effect)? Cunard (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, just add a small section to the News-Post article noting the interaction between their reporter and Delauter and note the coverage of the event went national. NE Ent 23:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea. I would prefer a separate article about Kirby Delauter so that his January 2015 incident isn't all that readers see when they search for him. That is more harmful to him than an article that puts the event in the context of Delauter's life as a businessman and politician. Cunard (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Addendum: WP:BLP1E. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. It actually says: Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article, not that we omit coverage of notable for one event people entirely. See also Madeleine Pulver, Paul Douglas Peters NE Ent 18:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Brian Douglas Wells, Marjorie Diehl-Armstrong NE Ent 01:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - or "keep merged" or whatever the hell passed for a !article vote in this morass. The subject is only notable for one brief blip of an event.  Nothing notable happened with or to this individual beforehand, despite the valiant blood-squeezing of sources used to cobble a semblance of a history/biography.  When the community says "that's it" to a subject, then barring legitimate 11-hour new information, the "that's it" should stand.  Enough of the endless tinkering by wiki-gnomes out to Right the Great Wrongs of the evil deletionists. Tarc (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a redirect, it's not particularly useful; there have potentially been hundreds of county councilmen in the county's history, having one of them as a redirect (but not the rest) is unhelpful when the county article doesn't mention him significantly, and neither having redirects for the rest nor covering him significantly would be appropriate.  As an article, it's inappropriate because everything's either trivial coverage or primary sources from the time of the events discussed in the article.  Give me anything that analyses the news stories and other primary sources, and I'll change my mind, but as primary sources, news stories cannot provide the historical perspective that we need to rely on for encyclopedia articles.  Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nyttend, are you arguing that news stories aren't reasonable sources for an article? So a NYT news story isn't a solid source for an article?  That certainly contradicts how we normally do things here.  And in any case, would an editorial of a major news paper (which is by definition an analysis of primary sources) not count as analysis?  If it doesn't, what would?  Hobit (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep draft The draft clearly meets WP:N in spades. There is no BLP1E issue as there are good sources (including an editorial written by the editorial board of the largest paper in the state...) that predate the event.  Hobit (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI: Apparently this book from NYU Press published in 2014 (before the January 2015 coverage) mentions the subject of the draft article [], and indicates the subject was also discussed in another scholarly publication. I have not looked for any other books but I just clicked on the search books and this is the first thing I saw.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 18.  —cyberbot I  <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 15:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable local politician who experienced his Warhol moment before returning to normal life. Delete redirect, delete draft per BLP1E (yes, I know it was covered by everybody for roughly 3000 minutes, but largely because it was a a good laugh at Delauter's expense that appealed to journalists) WP:1E and general BLP provisions against using WP as a means to shame otherwise non-notable individuals who have experienced a lapse in judgment.While I appreciate the tenacity of several editors in arguing their point, this appears to be a fine example of a biography that shouldn't be included in a global encyclopedia, with the claim to notability quite literally based on 48 hours of social media coverage and denunciation of a single clueless Facebook post.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, Salt, and Sow the ground with plutonium just to be sure. Absolutely clearcut case of WP:ONEEVENT, and Wikipedia should not be used to smear individuals as part of a political campaign.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC).
 * You do agree there were significant, non-local sources, well before the event? Hobit (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, a smattering of pure WP:DOGBITESMAN stuff that would be considered laughable sourcing for an article if not for "the event". Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC).
 * I'm starting to suspect you didn't read the draft or look at the sources. I never thought of an editorial board editorial in a major newspaper as something run of the mill, and I find it hard to believe anyone would.  And yes, that was from before the event. Hobit (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ] is not WP:DOGBITESMAN, nor is, so it does appear you have not read the sources, nor BEFORE. Such cites are most certainly not "sensational". Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (courtesy pings to those who have voiced an opinion in this topic), , , , , , , , , , , , , , .  Sorry if I hit people who are already commenting here.  Hobit (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. There would be no article were it not for his fatuous attempt to assert personality rights. He does not hold national or State political office. He probably never will (and that's arguably not a bad thing). WP:BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Perhaps the article was prompted by one event, but it does not give undue weight to that event. As it stands right now, it would probably pass article review based on the merits of the seven citations. There are entries of far less notable individuals than Delauter. Why exclude this page just because of one event? If he were to run for higher office, would he then be notable? Or does the one event permanently exclude this entry? I don't understand why editors would want to deny his thousands of constituents from learning about their representative and other interested readers from learning about his background and business interests. Also, I sense that many editors are not reading the draft and are just writing knee jerk responses based on the one event policy. Please read the draft impartially, as if it were just an article that had not yet been reviewed. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Leaning delete. I am most unimpressed by the reverence given to BLP1E.  BLP1E doesn't belong in WP:BLP, because BLP proper is sufficient to handle BLP issues.  BLP issues are cut or deleted or toned whether or not the event was multiple.  BLP1E sounds like a weightier version of BIO1E, with which it is redundant.  If any version of 1E applies, then a merge is the proper outcome.  The question is whether the event is notable.  It achieved a lot of independent secondary source coverage, but now that time has moved on, the sources now are better labelled as a "short burst of newspaper reports".  The secondary source nature of the sources collectively is greatly diminished by them all dating within days of the event.  There is no evidence of long term significance.  My original opinions on the topic were made without appreciation that this is not a significant politician whose article was missing and the he failed WP:NPOL.  I note that the "short term" period of publication of the source said to meet the WP:GNG is not mentioned directly at WP:N, and am thinking that this is an error of omission.  We have long recognised that a short burst of sources is not sufficient to make something Wikipedia-notable, something needs to be of interest for more than a week.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is coverage going back years before the event, including the editorial in the Baltimore Sun. Hobit (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the question is whether the event is notable, the question is whether the subject is notable. And as the abundance of external references demonstrates - his life has been extensively documented in impartial, reliable sources well before the one event. (forgot to login, corrected) Bangabandhu (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Hobit. I am aware of these responses to my !vote, and I don't wish to speak again against them.  The responses are reasonable.  My concern, tilting me to lean, has to do with the question of thresholds of notability, and whether all politicians are notable.  I am howevre strongly against the argument that having this article is a BLP issue, against the argument that this article does the subject any harm.  In fact, I agree with Cunard that this article relieves the subject somewhat from the harm of bias coverage provided by google.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep, I really apprecciate the fact that the article was created in good faith, does not focus on the incident and it is written in a neutral way. About notability and BLP1E, while I understand some concerns, I found the in depht analysis by Cunard above quite convincing. Cavarrone  07:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is a case where our notability guidelines don't serve us well: when press publicity for silly reasons is given too much weight. However, the article clearly shows WP:GNG has been met with substantial, etc. coverage. Also, prior coverage demonstrates the topic does not fail under "1E" considerations. Our documented requirements for having articles should be improved. I was tempted to !vote delete on the basis that our guidelines do not lead to a sensible result in this case. However, I think for politicians especially we should stick to the "rules" to avoid any appearance of political bias and so we ought to keep the article. Thincat (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick (biased) summary of the split !vote:
 * While a couple of people have claimed he doesn't meet WP:N no one has explained why the sources in the draft aren't significant independent coverage. And there is certainly a LOT more coverage than is found in the article (though largely about the event).  Instead they seem to focus on if he's "important", which is not part of WP:N.  I honestly can't see how a WP:N argument can be formed for deletion.
 * Arguments based on BLP1E are more reasonable, but haven't really addressed the significant coverage before the "event". While some of it is fairly routine coverage of a local paper, there is one extremely solid source in a major newspaper that predates the event by years and the local coverage addresses some significant issues.  He met the letter (and I'd claim the spirit) of WP:N before the event.  That is enough to negate a BLP1E argument.  Someone notable before an event doesn't become less notable for afterwards--quite the opposite in fact.
 * Claims of NOHARM issues are dealt with quite well by the draft. If anything, the draft is biased in his favor compared to the sources (even without the event...).  This issue was addressed quite well above.
 * Given the split !vote and relative strength of arguments, I'd say we are at a keep or (maybe) a NC outcome. My 2 cents.  Back to work. Hobit (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. As Cunard notes, there is coverage that predates the Facebook gaffe, but I don't believe the case has been convincingly made that it's significant and sustained enough coverage to qualify Delauter for a standalone article. In general, county officials don't rate an article unless they've done something more significant (typically running for statewide office) despite the fact that run-of-the-mill coverage for their county activities can usually be found. WP:GNG notes, correctly, that such coverage is no guarantee that a standalone article is appropriate, and that in-depth discussions, such as this one, may conclude that they are not. So I don't think he qualifies for a bio on the basis of his activities as a county official, and I therefore think WP:BLP1E still applies with regards to his fifteen-minute Internet fame for his Facebook remarks. 28bytes (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll add that I agree with Nyttend that a redirect isn't particularly useful, as it obscures the more useful search function, which would display a list of the article(s) (if any) that Delauter may be mentioned in. 28bytes (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, you are saying that there is coverage out there but because his job is minor, we shouldn't have an article? Also, I'm curious why you are discounting coverage in a major newspaper well before the event.  Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We should indeed consider the importance of an article subject and not just the fact that they were mentioned in a newspaper. Otherwise, every time The Baltimore Sun happened to discuss the actions of a teacher, store owner, cop, or dog catcher, we'd be obligated to host an article on that person regardless of whether they have any true encyclopedic significance. 28bytes (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Steve Bartman is a redirect. The name is easily searchable on-wiki [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=Steve+Bartman&fulltext=Search wiki search] and was as off [//www.google.com/search?num=100&q=Steve+Bartman+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org&oq=Steve+Bartman+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org google search]. NE Ent 09:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In practice, there are many County Councilmembers with pages on Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to search for all of them, but for one example, here are the bios for the entire King County Council - some of those members have fewer references and far less notability than Delauter, even before the one event. Unfortunately, there isn't a category of county councilmembers, not at least one that I could find - though it would be a well-populated list, I'm sure. Bangabandhu (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC) References continue to be made: March 21st In Maryland, Frederick County Councilman Kirby Delauter went so far as threatening to sue if his name was printed in the newspaper. March 25th Following a trail blazed by Maryland councilman Kirby Delauter NE Ent 09:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: About categories and notability standard for county-level councillors World-wide county councilmember-equivalents fall within Category:Subnational legislators.  That includes sub-categories Category:County commissioners in the United States.  That has a sub-category for each U.S. state, with variation in naming that mixes & matches "county commissioners" and "county supervisors" and "county council members".  Maryland's is Category:County commissioners in Maryland, which holds just 8 articles.  Washington state's category has 25:  12 articles about individual persons in Category:King County Councillors and 13 about non-King County persons.  Category:County freeholders in New Jersey has 222.  Virginia has 33 (with 21 in one county), California has about 250 (with about 160 in just 5 counties), etc.   is correct:  in the U.S. there lots of such articles.  A specific notability standard could be argued for, that might be emerging, is that all county-level council-members and equivalents deserve articles, while not yet town-level councillors (like high schools are all deemed notable but primary schools are not). -- do  ncr  am  18:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends on the political unit. In some places e.g. Connecticut counties have little governmental function. NE Ent 20:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Right: In a specific notability standard, what a "county-level council-member equivalent" means would have to be spelled out for each state, and category names/organization could differ.  For Connecticut though there is now one member of Category:County commissioners in Connecticut: a man who was county commissioner of Tolland County, Connecticut during 1921–1932. -- do  ncr  am  22:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for researching this more thoroughly. I bet most of the categories are underpopulated. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

...and another. Was reminded by this current book review about Justine Sacco, yet another example of BLP1E meaning what it says -- "no article" &ne; "no coverage". NE Ent 00:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep He is a public figure, even if a minor public figure, and the principle of do no harm applies--it's the news stories on which this is based which might do him harm, not the WP article. County commissioners are not necessarily notable, but this is a very substantial county, and in any case, there's been sufficient publicity.  DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Here's an editorial posted today that mentions the subject in detail but doesn't mention the one event. Here's an article in the last week; no mention of not mentioning. Another editorial. Here's a column from Ed Newton which tries to put the incident in perspective; reprinted widely, if 93 times seems "widely". Here's an article about coverage in Publisher Auxiliary, a pretty well-known paper about newspapers. I haven't started listing the 479 articles (according to the "news" search link in the AFD template above) directly detailing the incident. If an event, the event seems to meet most of the criteria of WP:EVENT. As the editor points out directly above, this is a public figure, an elected official in a county of a quarter million people. He has gotten continued coverage since first elected. Based on his history, he may get lots more. If again deleted, salting is premature. BusterD (talk) 15:54, 5 April 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.

Postscript

 * I history-merged Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter (see the background at Talk:Kirby Delauter and Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter); the original old edits of Kirby Delauter, which were a short article only about the name use and complaint, are now at Talk:Kirby Delauter/old short article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)