Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Carlisle


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter Carlisle

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No reliable sources indicating this individual meets WP:POLITICIAN: Redirect to Prosecuting Attorney of Honolulu. That is the general rule prescribed by WP:POLITICIAN Cloud183 (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Lots of coverage, including a feature biography on "Peter the Prosecutor," in Honolulu magazine. Status as an outspoken anti-death penalty prosecutor adds to notability. POLITICIAN guidelines are silent on whether prosecutors MUST be merged or redirected into articles relating to their office. In my opinion, Carlisle clears the general notability bar. Carrite (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete What you site is not really "significant media coverage". Wikepedia defines "significant media coverage" for a general person as "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. "significant media coverage for a politician is defined as "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." one article in a local magazine hardly meats either standard. You are correct that WP:POLITICIAN does not say that prosecutors MUST be merged into articles relating to their office. But it does say that when someone does not merit a stand alone article, that they should be merged into an appropriate article when possible. In this case, I believe that Prosecuting Attorney of Honolulu would be the most appropriate place for him to be merged if it is determined that a stand alone article is in fact not warranted. Cloud183 (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find it quite bizarre, as I suspect would most non-Americans, that a public prosecutor should be judged by the standards of WP:POLITICIAN, but, as it is an elected position, I suppose it applies. The guideline says that "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are considered notable. The "general rule" quoted by the nominator is for unelected candidates, not for those who have been elected. Apart from WP:POLITICIAN the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Could this nomination be connected to the fact that Carlisle has just announced his candidacy for mayor of Honolulu? We don't delete articles on already notable subjects just because they go on to do something that wouldn't in itself confer notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete You are correct, the general rule I mentioned does say that it is for unelected candidates. However, common sense dictates that it would also apply to persons elected to offices that do not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN. Because, the only other alternative, if it is found that he does not warrant a stand alone article, would be to delete the person completely. If it is found that he does not warrant a stand alone article, don't you agree that it would be better to merge him, as I suggest, rather than to delete him completely? Cloud183 (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (with conditions) the article does need work if it is going to stay. Add more independent sources like local newspapers and magazines. There should be some. A quick search looks like there are. With tongue only slightly in cheek, my rule would be a politician gets notable if there is at least one public scandal about them. And of course if he wins as mayor he would be notable. W Nowicki (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added several sources as you suggested. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The reason I am judging the article by the standards of WP:POLITICIAN is because that is what the article seems to be dedicated to, his political career. About 50% of the article is about his campaigns and elections to office. There is nothing in this article to suggest that he is of general notability as a result of his career as a city prosecutor. In fact, there are only 2 sentences in the entire article, which do not even cite a source, that reference his career as a prosecutor. "Along with administrating the Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office, Carlisle personally prosecuted several cases during his term including the mass murder trial of Byran Uyesugi who shot and killed seven of his co-workers at a Xerox warehouse in Honolulu. The jury found Uyesugi guilty of First Degree Murder." Unless there is "significant media coverage",WP:POLITICIAN is specific on what offices warrant stand alone articles for their holders, and city prosecutor is not one of them. Also, as most city prosecutors do not have stand alone articles, simply being a city prosecutor, weather political or otherwise, dose not make someone generally notable. As no other Prosecuting Attorney of Honolulu other than Peter Carlisle has a stand alone article, clearly simply being the Prosecuting Attorney of Honolulu does not make someone generally notable. The only reason he would be generally notable as a city prosecutor, is if he did things of notability in that office. But there is nothing in this article to suggest that he has, certainly not to an encyclopedic level, or that would be "part of the enduring historical record". Some have suggested that the information is out there if you search for it. When I search, I don't see what I would call "significant media coverage" or note worthy deeds. But, I should not have to search for it, and telling people to search for it is backwards. If other posters that wish the article to be kept are aware of information out there that shows he is a note worthy individual, they should add that information to the article and site reliable sources. If people need to search the internet to find the reasons that the article should exist, it defeats the purpose of having the article in the first place. Cloud183 (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to Cloud183: I'm striking out your "delete" !vote from this and previous comments. As nominator your "delete" opinion is assumed, and you only get one !vote - although obviously you can comment as much as you like. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I added half a dozen references to the article. He is clearly notable in his own right. Whether other city prosecutors have articles or not is irrelevant; notability is judged on a case-by-case basis, and this guy has plenty of significant coverage from reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I would have thought that the chief prosecutor of a state - being a very senior and public position - is likely to be notable. The coverage of Carlisle in the sources presented by the article supports this thinking.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. To be pedantic, the subject was actually chief prosecutor of the city and county of Honolulu, which contains over 70% of Hawaii's population, rather than of the state of Hawaii. Not that that makes any difference to his notability as demonstrated by the hundreds of sources available. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2010 (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.