Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Petersen (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 Delete.  JGHowes   talk  02:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Paul Petersen (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One event does not make someone notable per 1E Isingness (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: the question is whether being a county assessor makes Petersen a public figure. If not, per WP:BLPCRIME, he hasn't been convicted and should have no article. But even if he's considered a WP:PUBLICFIGURE because he was elected to an office (minor office, county level), he wasn't notable enough before the crime to support an article, so I think the right thing to do is defer to BLPCRIME and delete. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Just for the record, the county from which the subject was elected is really large -- Maricopa County, Arizona is the fourth-most populous county in the U.S. It's more populous than about 70 countries. Editors can take this information into consideration if they choose to do so, or not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. County assessor is not a role that would have gotten him a Wikipedia article on WP:NPOL grounds, so we have to stick with WP:BLPCRIME — and per BLPCRIME, if a person wasn't already notable enough for an article for other reasons, then he has to be convicted of, not merely charged with, a crime before he might have a valid claim to being notable as a politician. Even if he is convicted in the end, an event article about the adoption fraud ring might be more appropriate than a standalone BLP of him as a person — but the time to evaluate that one way or the other will be after there's been a conviction, not today. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat. Petersen doesn't pass NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- his position as assessor is not per se notable, but his crimes are ... unique. Bearian (talk)
 * And yet, under the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, sensitive enough that we have no business saying anything at all about them on Wikipedia unless and until he's convicted (and even then possibly only in an event article rather than a standalone BLP.) Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable under WP:NPOL and the crimes lend themselves to a negative WP:BLP per WP:PERP. Delete it. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete a violation of not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article was horribly written. I did my best to make it more appropriate for Wikipedia if it is ultimately kept. I will also note that several Maricopa County officials have pages, including Paul Penzone, Helen Purcell, and Bill Montgomery. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an important page. Mr. Petersen’s conduct exemplifies the needed reforms in adoption laws across the U.S. This is likely to be the most egregious adoption scam in U.S. history involving hundreds of babies sold under the guise of an adoption. This page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.58.234 (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - While makes a cogent if WP:OSE point, I would contest that Petersen's position in Maricopa County is not within the scope of WP:NPOL notability. Montgomery has notability thru the AZ Supreme Court, Penzone is Arpaio's replacement (and even that is a shaky argument of notability), and Purcell has the legal notability. Petersen would not meet WP:NPOL for his municipal government work, and would be a case of WP:1E for the adoption controversy. For the IP who voted, it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to be a WP:SOAPBOX or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you'd like to add more information about adoption reform in the United States, you can add that to the existing article on Adoption in the United States. Bkissin (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2019 (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.