Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Melvoin


 * 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Nick Melvoin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I know Los Angeles is a big media market, but this is still just a local school board member. I don't feel he passes our notability standards. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN, and not otherwise WP:GNG notable. SportingFlyer  talk  20:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ultimately I will probably agree with this nomination, but in fairness to the discussion it could be noted that Melvoin's campaign and election got more attention than the norm for a school board election because of its perceived importance in the nationwide charter school debate, including national attention such as The New York Times, Washington Post , NPR , and The Wall Street Journal (this last one's an editorial, but it shows the national scope of attention to this election). There ought perhaps to be some mention of the issue and this pivotal election  at Los Angeles Unified School District and Charter schools in the United States.  As a general proposition, though, I agree that we don't generally have separate bio articles for people whose notability rests on school board membership, even when it's the second largest school district in the country.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 00:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 00:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 00:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete- It's bad enough we have tons of articles about small town mayors and city councilmen, but I don't see any school board member being notable in any usual circumstance. Clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN--Rusf10 (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. There's plenty of coverage of his campaign, but it's been very quiet since. I think there may be enough here for WP:GNG (it's a huge district, with numbers of students roughly comparable to the entire population of one of the smaller states) but if all we can cover is the campaign then there's a WP:BIO1E issue. Now if the subject had been his fellow board member Ref Rodriguez... —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing all notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. School board trustees don't clear WP:NPOL just because they exist — and no, the fact that he serves on the school board of Los Angeles, rather than Palookaville WY, is not in and of itself enough to make him a special case, because most other school board trustees in LA don't have articles either. Candidacy-related coverage does not help him clear WP:GNG, because some degree of that is simply expected to exist for all candidates in all school board elections everywhere. There is a potential claim of preexisting notability here for his work as an education advocate before he ran for school board, but it's not sourced well enough to get him over GNG for it: it's stacked mainly onto one piece of his own writing, one Q&A interview in which he's merely being quoted talking about himself, and a couple of additional sources which verify stray facts about the outcome without mentioning Melvoin's name at all in conjunction with it. So literally the only source here that's doing much at all in terms of qualifying Melvoin for a Wikipedia article is The New Republic's "The Layoff Epidemic", because it's the only source that satisfies all the required conditions — reliable, predating the election campaign itself and more than trivially about him — but one solid source isn't enough to drop the mic. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2018 (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.