Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Marsh (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. Participants are unanimous that the subject passes WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Paul Marsh (politician)

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

I don’t believe that holding the position of Arizona State Mine Inspector makes someone notable. The sources I can see are all routine campaign pieces or announcements of his appointment so I don’t believe this is a GNG pass either. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Arizona. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep – This is a state-wide office established by the Arizona Constitution. Mining is a most important industry in the and the Inspector's role/office is certainly notable. – S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I moved the article from Draft to Main. The reason why I decided to move the article to main space is because Mine Inspector is a state constitutional office elected popularily. WP:NPOL states politicians who are elected to state/provincewide are presumed to be notable, therefore this passes GNG. Ueutyi (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: He is an elected officer not an appointed officer. As of Ballotpedia, he got 830,034 votes for becoming mine inspector which means 0.8 million peoples chose him as a inspector. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The position is not part of the Arizona Governor's Executive Dapartment, which would in effect make it a cabinet level position, thus clearly presumably notable under NPOL. Nevertheless, it is an elected state-wide position, although in this particular case, it was an unopposed election. Things aren't helped by the fact that sourcing (both in the article and elsewhere) appears somewhat weak. I've struggled to find anything that can unambiguously be considered indpendent SIGCOV. Nevertheless, it takes a pretty strong degree of logical contortion to claim he does not hold an elected state-wide position, so he does satisfy NPOL.  Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep he does meet WP:NPOL, but the lack of SIGCOV is a bit concerning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2022 (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.