Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathanial Bates


 * 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). SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 01:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nathanial Bates

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable politician; outdated article. Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough. Split from this AfD  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep - One of a series of cut-and-paste deletion nominations by this nominator. No indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed in this case. I also find it offensive and contrary to policy that independent, published coverage in the local press is deemed not "independent enough." This is not NewYorkCitypedia or Londonpedia or Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This vote should be retracted, as it's clear the editor hasn't even bothered to read the article, and is voting to keep a load of cruft on this Wiki. This article, and all the other ones nominated in a similar matter, are permastubs created in a fly-by-night manner and should have been deleted years ago.  And it's by no means offensive to say local news doesn't count.  There are many items that are required in policy and/or supported by the consensus of editors.  What's offensive is your procedural keep vote  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep - Part of rationale for deletion "Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough" unacceptable. The Proffesor (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable isn't the word you want  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  20:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/us/10bcrichmond.html?pagewanted=all Without this kind of coverage, even being mayor doesn't meet WP:Politician, but the material in reliable sources leans me to keep at this point. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It's probably worth noting that this article misspells the subject's name (it's Nathaniel), which has me be a bit suspicious of the content of the article. That being said, Bates' notability clearly exceeds the other members of the Richmond council in regards to the attention that his last mayoral run got in the Bay Citizen, and through it, the New York Times:
 * Keep I found plenty of coverage about him and added some to the article. He is one of the longest-serving city councilmembers in the state of California (32 years including two stints as mayor). I strongly object to your repeated, rote claim that the article is "outdated". I personally updated this article on December 3, adding information and references. I would appreciate it if you would respond to these articles in their current state, rather than the state they were in before your first mass nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe he was one of the first black mayors back in the day after the 1964 civil rights act took place and he is a local legend in the Bay Area's black community. He is also clearly "generally notable".Luciferwildcat (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. Slightly more notable than some of the other non-notable politicians from Richmond, CA that I have read about today.  I think he was actually the second African American mayor of that not-terribly-significant town.  I still don't think he quite cuts it though, and would delete. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep He barely meets WP:POLITICIAN but the one newspaper source has some relevant info that needs to be added to the article.Sionk (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep All of these should be combined. They were all mayors of Richmond, a city with over a hundred thousand people in it, and thus got ample coverage.   D r e a m Focus  18:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 100,000 is a purely arbitrary number. Does that mean the mayor of a city like Richmond with 104,000 is significant, an a mayor of a city with 96,000 isn't?  It doesn't work that way.  Also, these were combined, and everybody said, "split 'em up because they're different", so I split them up.   Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  21:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not arbitrary, 100,000 is the standard threshold for what constitutes a major city, and yes a city with 94,000 is not a major city because 100K+ is the threshold.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Move to "Nat Bates" and delete the resulting redirect for Nathanial Bates Thanks to Nwlaw63 for mentioning the error in the title.  Few online newspaper archives go back to 1967, so we can expect as per WP:NRVE that someone with access to the downtown San Francisco main library would find a long list of additional references in the back copies of the San Francisco Chronicle, references beyond these.  But just the first three of these are enough to show wp:notability.  This ref is the full-length article partially carried in the SFC.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This topic appears to be receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Note that as denoted above by another user, this person's first name is misspelled. Check out this Google News search for more sources:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2011 (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.
 * 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.