Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Sanders (Green Party)


 * 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)  Ya  sh  !   12:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Larry Sanders (Green Party)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:POLITICIAN - notability is not inherited.  Rcsprinter123    (jaw)  10:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (comment)  10:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (note)  10:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (engage)  10:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Lots of third-party references. Zigzig20s (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a policy. WP:POLITICIAN is irrelevant because we use it in cases like people elected to major offices about whom no profiles have been written.  The standard Sanders passes is the WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."  It does not matter what prompted that coverage. When those sources exist, as they do here in the form of in-depth profiles and interviews in major media both in the U.S. and Britain, we accept that as evidence of notability.  It is not a question of whether you or I think Larry Sanders has notable accomplishments.  The fact that the BBC, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, Rolling Stone  and other media write him up at length means that he passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. He doesn't appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN or indeed WP:PROF.  Mr Gregory is right that WP:NOTINHERITED is complete rubbish and usually misunderstood.  I'm willing to let this one stay but if Bernie Sanders doesn't get the Dem nom for prez, and slips back into relative obscurity, I'd advise reconsideration.  Claudebone (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "As reporters beat a path to the door of Mr. (Larry) Sanders’ terraced house..." The Independent, 27 January 2016. Larry truly has been having a moment with British press.  That said, I endorse User:Claudebone suggestion to keep this for now, and reconsider whether to keep or merge to a section in Bernie's article after... well, just after.  For now, however, it may be better for Wikipedia to close this, reason: when a man is drawing this kind of attention, it makes Wikipedia silly to have an AFD template on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Striking my caveat, because coverage of this man is truly so massive that, WP being WP:NOTTEMPORARY, this article passes WP:GNG. User:Rcsprinter123, I think that if you re-read WP:NOTINHERITED, You might see your way to gracefully withdraw at this point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. There is no good reason to delete this article. There are many good reasons to keep it. Bernie Sanders has stated that his older brother has had a profound influence on him and has shaped his outlook on life and his values. The proposal to delete the article is yet another example of the silliness, bordering on wilful vandalism, demonstrated by those Wikipedia Dining Room Monitors who want to turn Wikipedia into a dull, group-sourced version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and who look down their noses at those of us who want Wikipedia to be truly encyclopaedic.124.186.99.210 (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Most of the keep arguments above are irrelevant (notability is not temporary, articles aren't kept just because AfD templates look bad, yada yada), and most of the third-party coverage of this individual appears to be mostly in connection to his brother, which makes this a pretty borderline case. He was, though, on the Oxfordshire city council, which is a political office at the level of a non-metropolitan county, which I assume is roughly similar to a state- or province-level office (see WP:POLITICIAN #1) although I guess an argument could be made that it's more like municipal. WP:POLOUTCOMES indicates that municipal offices aren't usually considered enough for notability unless there's additional coverage beyond that; in this case I think the borderline political office plus the extra attention through his brother is maybe enough to qualify as substantial coverage. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. When I first knew of the page and the AFD discussion, many months ago, I felt "fair enough, delete it, I can't be bothered to get involved" - nothing about his political role in England made a really clear-cut case for him to have a page, even if on balance I might have kept it myself.  But looking now at WP:BASIC, I see that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."  He is receiving significant coverage - the fact that just at the moment it is in largest part in connection with his brother does not mean that he is not receiving it.  It wasn't until today that I made any connection between him and his brother, but I looked today at the Larry Sanders (Green Party) page precisely to find out whether the person that was about to be interviewed on BBC Radio4 is the same as the Green Party politician that I already knew of (and as it happens the appearance on BBC Radio4 did mention his standing for the UK Parliament as a Green Party candidate).  If connection with a news story means somebody who is already at least close to notability gets further "significant coverage" in RS, it seems to me that there isn't real scope for debate.  And yes, I know WP:NOTNEWS: but "news coverage of [this] individual [does go] beyond the context of a single event" - Larry was already close enough to being notable without the connection to his brother for an article about him to be reasonable.  DrArsenal (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ...Looking further, and to explain my opening sentence, there have been articles about this Larry Sanders at least twice in the past - one deleted in February 2010 and one, that I actually was referring to above, deleted in the last year, before the current one was created. DrArsenal (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * On the telly again today .E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, but maybe Larry Sanders (politician) would be a better title --ʬʬ (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * good point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Though the article could use some work, it should be moved to Larry Sanders (politician) as per ʬʬ. Article shows notability and is better sourced than some of the short articles I've seen. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is no reason to delete this article. It seems to be a factual article and photo about a human being.  There is no reason to delete any or all content from this article at this time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.28.245 (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete being the brother of a notable person does not make that person themselves notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 6 February 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.