Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Savas


 * 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 19:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul Savas

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:POLITICIAN Gsingh (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sitting county commissioner in Clackamas County, one of the counties in the Portland metro area. HERE'S a piece on him from the website of the Portland Oregonian, largest newspaper in the state, from less than a month ago. Carrite (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * INTERVIEW with Savas by Oregon's version of Rush Limbaugh, Lars Larson. Carrite (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WILSONVILLE SPOKESMAN on Savas's recent campaign announcement (paywalled). Carrite (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ANOTHER OREGONIAN PIECE on Savas. Carrite (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This just scratches it, as a preliminary Google search should have indicated before this nomination was made. Pretty clearly passes GNG, looks like he's being groomed for bigger things by the Oregon Rs. Carrite (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * see WP:FUTURE, as this point in time, he's not notable enough for his own article, we can't have articles for every city/county politician. Gsingh (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not paper. No limit to how many articles they could have.  And future doesn't matter, since he meets the WP:GNG do to current coverage.   D r e a m Focus  21:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete "Looks like he's being groomed" counts for nothing. An 11-minute audio interview, plus routine enter-the-race announcements, do not constitute significant coverage. In fact I'm having trouble deciding whether this article is merely unintentional self-parody by the subject or someone close to him, or an attack page by someone intent on embarrassing him: "In his early life, Paul was always considerably handy in mechanics. He holds a degree in automotive technology.  He had always thought that Government was a well oiled machine but learned that its 'inefficiencies and inconsistencies' needed immediate attention. He later earned a place at the Oak Lodge Water District and then the Oak Lodge Sanitary District boards." EEng (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I presumed it was written by someone close to him. The badness of the article is not a valid deletion rationale, but rather means things need to be improved, which I presume would be the view of 100% of Wikipedians. Two pieces in the Oregonian is as "reliable and independent" that published coverage can get. And he is the SUBJECT of the pieces. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The 'badness' is not the rationale, the rationale is that it fails the notability criteria. Gsingh (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An elected official of one of the biggest counties in the state is the object of multiple stories in the biggest newspaper in the state for doing political stuff and that doesn't count? I'm still looking for the rationale... Carrite (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The nomination indicated that this was a failure of WP:POLITICIAN, I cite the above sources as proof that this subject passes point 2 of that special guideline: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Carrite (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The key word is significant, your first link is from soundcloud, an audio sharing site, the second link has one sentence saying "Clackamas County Commissioner Paul Savas has filed for the county chair position in the 2012 General Election." That's hardly news coverage; WP:POLITICIAN states, A politician who has received significant press coverage has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. I believe that Paul Savas does not meet this criteria. Gsingh (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Carrite, in quoting Point 2 of WP:POLITICIAN you omitted the footnote, which provides: A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. I've read the sources -- typical "meet the candidates" pieces with age, grew-up-here, owns-this-business, and soundbites on how government should be better and so on; or just rehash of press releases.  That's far from multiple, in-depth, news feature articles.  By your standards any candidate for any office, unless completely ignored by the press, would notable.   EEng (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, that doesn't change a single thing. Above are two FEATURE articles BY JOURNALISTS and ABOUT the subject from Oregon's Big Boy newspaper (circulation 200,000-ish). Next I'm going to hear that the pixels that make up the characters of the footnote of the subsection of the subsidiary guideline to GNG connote something that they do not. This is an ELECTED POLITICIAN, one of FIVE running the THIRD LARGEST COUNTY IN OREGON. There are MORE THAN TWO articles ABOUT that individual that have run in the Oregonian, and a slew more behind paywalls that anybody with Google can suss out. Open, shut, done deal. Passes section 2 of WP:POLITICIAN. Carrite (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was fact-checking my guesstimate on circulation, which I worried was high. And it might be, who knows. But the Oregonian is [THE 21ST LARGEST CIRCULATION DAILY NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA, so there you go. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Make that 23rd LARGEST with a circulation of 268,000+. Carrite (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As already mentioned, short meet-the-candidate basic bios and press release rehashes are not "in-depth" coverage, regardless of how many there are or the circulation of the paper. Please point to the article you consider the most in-depth -- perhaps I missed it. EEng (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – Significant, ongoing coverage in reliable sources equates to topic notability; topic passes WP:GNG.
 * Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Substituting the word "significant" for "in-depth", I repeat my earlier comment/query (as yet still unanswered): short meet-the-candidate basic bios and press release rehashes are not "in-depth" coverage, regardless of how many there are or the circulation of the paper. Please point to the article you consider the most significant -- perhaps I missed it. EEng (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Significant does not mean in-depth. Never has, never will.   D r e a m Focus  21:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It does to the extent we're relying (as Carrite does) on WP:POLITICIAN, which as already mentioned provides that A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. So significant does indeed mean in-depth after all, at least in WP:POLITICIAN. EEng (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Substituting the word "significant" for "in-depth", I repeat my earlier comment/query (as yet still unanswered): short meet-the-candidate basic bios and press release rehashes are not "in-depth" coverage, regardless of how many there are or the circulation of the paper. Please point to the article you consider the most significant -- perhaps I missed it. EEng (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Significant does not mean in-depth. Never has, never will.   D r e a m Focus  21:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It does to the extent we're relying (as Carrite does) on WP:POLITICIAN, which as already mentioned provides that A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. So significant does indeed mean in-depth after all, at least in WP:POLITICIAN. EEng (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on coverage found. WP:GNG is clearly met.   D r e a m Focus  21:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep probably doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN as I dont know if I'd call county commissioner a 'major political figure' but coverage in 3rd party sources is sufficient to meet WP:BIO RadioFan (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep all elected politicians are notable because they undoubtedly have more than trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources as this man has.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Because WP:POLITICIAN says 3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" and in the footnote to Point 2 defines "significant coverage" as "'has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. I've repeatedly asked for someone to point to an example of in-depth coverage, with no response.  EEng (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is determined by the General Notability Guidelines OR the secondary guidelines. It doesn't have to meet both.  And most politicians will pass WP:GNG quite easily.  WP:POLITICIAN is there to catch those that are notable but don't pass the GNG.   D r e a m Focus  08:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per sufficient substantial RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2012 (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.