Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael O'Brien (New Hampshire politician)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Putting this out of its misery: WP:SNOW applies. There's an almost universal acceptance that the subject passes WP:NPOL, and following the addition of new material, opposition has been withdrawn. No consensus is likely to emerge in favor of the nomination. ——Serial 20:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Michael O'Brien (New Hampshire politician)

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

Non-notable Lower house politician—no in-depth coverage from independent RS. X (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep gets a freebie per NPOL.Djflem (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep from WP:NPOL and there is information that he is from reliable sources,    (although I have to say they were far too hard to find and if he wasn't in the NH house it would be an easy delete)  Shaws username  .  talk  . 14:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Clearcut case per NPOL. Central and Adams (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:NPOL. He is a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous votes. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hold our horses - NPOL exists because there's a presumption of coverage. New Hampshire has one legislator for every 3,300 people, which is one of the lowest if not the lowest in the entire world. Are we sure he has coverage as a result? There's nothing in the article apart from his legislative profile and the sources found here aren't about him. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It can't be true that NPOL exists because there's a presumption of coverage. If there were coverage the GNG would suffice. NPOL must exist because sometimes there's not coverage but the subject is notable anyway. The presumption of notability in NPOL is not a rebuttable presumption. It's a guarantee of notability. That this is the case is clear from the discussion of local officials and unelected candidates at the bottom of the guideline, where it states:
 * If elected state level officials weren't guaranteed notability by NPOL it wouldn't be necessary to explicitly state that local officials were not. Central and Adams (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not what "presumed" means - the dictionary definition is literally "to take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary." We typically presume politicians will be notable because they should easily have received significant coverage, even if we can't find coverage of them. I'm not convinced that's the case here. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It literally is what one sense of the word "presume" is. I don't know what dictionary you're using, but the OED notes what you quoted as only one of two meanings, the other being "To assume; to take for granted; to presuppose; to anticipate, count upon, or expect". Which sense is intended is, as with all polysemous words, determined by context, which is why I argued from the context that the meaning here is as I stated. You're talking about the definition of a rebuttable presumption. My argument is that the sense meant here is an irrebuttable presumption. Central and Adams (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Central and AdamsGreetings. You said, NPOL must exist because sometimes there's not coverage but the subject is notable anyway. -If a person is indeed notable, then why won't they get proper coverage? To my understanding, notability is vehemently based on coverage. How can a person be notable and not have coverage? What is notability based on if not on coverage? We give people freebies if they've won some reputable awards or an academic or a notable politician, but I don't think you'd find many person not having coverage meeting any of these criteria properly. I'd like your take on that. (PS: Agreeing with @SportingFlyer on this) We typically presume politicians will be notable because they should easily have received significant coverage, even if we can't find coverage of them. I'm not convinced that's the case here.. X (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If notability is based solely on coverage then why would we need any notability guidelines other than the GNG? The very fact that NPOL contains a presumption of notability shows that it must apply in the absence of coverage. If there were coverage it wouldn't be necessary to have a presumption of notability. If all NPOL meant were that politicians are notable unless there's no coverage it would say the same thing as the GNG, so why would it exist? Central and Adams (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We really only do have the GNG. We have presumptions because it makes it easier to figure out what can and can't be covered, but in the past few years we have generally tied the presumptions very close to the GNG. The NPOL presumption exists because if you're a member of a state legislature, it is almost certain you will have been written about in reliable secondary sources, which is helpful for say someone who was a member of a historical legislature who we can't access sources for. In O'Brien's case, he's an active legislator, but one source is just the state website, the other source in the article just shows he's an alderman (the only thing on him on that website is his address) and a ballotpedia page, which is a wiki. Because of the fact there's no secondary information we can use to build this page out, and also due to WP:BLP concerns, it's probably best if this were redirected somewhere, and the information in the article merged there until we can write a stand-alone article. Also, I think this would be pretty close to being New Hampshire-specific, considering how few people vote on state legislators there. Most other MPs have much larger constituencies and as such have much more written about them. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you say there's no secondary information. It took me about ten minutes to find a ton of it, which I added to the article. But I still maintain that even if this weren't possible to do the dude would still pass NPOL. Also, it's not true that we really only do have the GNG. WP:N says explicitly that a subject is notable if it passes either the GNG or a subject specific guideline. Central and Adams (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how it's been interpreted recently for most guidelines anymore, but there are a few exceptions. The new coverage removes any objections I've had, though. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep As a member of New Hampshire House of Representatives, meets WP:NPOL. As long as it is verifiable the individual holds the office, state legislators are worthy of a stand alone article. There will be information about the subject in the official pages of the NH legislature - including votes taken and bills introduced and sponsored. There are records of election results. All of this is good, verifiable information that can build a strong article, even if there is limited newspaper coverage now. --Enos733 (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly meets WP:NPOL, as others have mentioned. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:NPOL. If some believe GNG isn't met, then NPOL's validity must be challenged to the community as a whole like WP:NSPORTS was. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2024 (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.