Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Griffin (Councilmember)


 * 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. Passes the GNG, as is pointed out by the keeps. Nominator: your point about a supposed lack of independence holds little weight. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard Griffin (Councilmember)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable politician; outdated article. Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough. Split from this AfD  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep - One of a series of cut-and-paste deletion nominations by this nominator. No indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed in this case. I also find it offensive and contrary to policy that independent, published coverage in the local press is deemed not "independent enough." This is not NewYorkCitypedia or Londonpedia or Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This vote should be retracted, as it's clear the editor hasn't even bothered to read the article, and is voting to keep a load of cruft on this Wiki. This article, and all the other ones nominated in a similar matter, are permastubs created in a fly-by-night manner and should have been deleted years ago.  And it's by no means offensive to say local news doesn't count.  There are many items that are required in policy and/or supported by the consensus of editors.  What's offensive is your procedural keep vote  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep this is a bad faith nomination, this man has been on council for years, wikipedia is not paper, local matters if notable and referencible should be included too, and this is not ridiculous, I will expand them myself as I find them interesting, and take a look at Richmond-San Rafael Ferry Company a local topic of interest, it was a simple stub for years nearly identical to when It was created but then years later someone added a ton of info, from sources in books. This town seems rather neglected to me on wikipedia and if we don't build it they wont come.Luciferwildcat (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I found plenty of references about him; he served for more than 20 years. You're a fine one to accuse others of "not reading the article". I personally updated this article on December 3, bringing it up to date and adding information and references, but you are still repeating your rote claim of "outdated". I wish you would respond to the articles in their current state instead of the state they were in before your first mass nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 *  Comment Delete - I didn't think I had the strength to work through the bio of yet another minor politician from Richmond, but I did, and my view is that Mr Griffin is similarly not sufficiently notable. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete A Richmond councilman fails WP:Politician, and a few obits and other routine coverage isn't enough to make him notable otherwise. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, he is generally notable, take Harpreet Sandhu for instance one of the other mass nominations, if you would vote procedural keep to give some time for me to clean this up like I did that less notable candidate I would be very appreciative.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete He fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN, the brief obituaries say he was "never controversial", which politely suggests he was a jobbing councillor who did nothing (apart from dying) that would attract attention. Sionk (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -This topic receives significant coverage in RS. Try this more-specific search in Google News below:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Our guidelines do not say, " 'routine' means worthless".  President Obama and the War in Iraq are "routinely" covered too, routine coverage means that we can expect that there is enough material about a topic to write an encyclopedia article.  Our policy at WP:Deletion policy suggests the next step to consider if a topic is not notable is, where can it be merged?  And we have at least one reasonable target, the Richmond City Council.  If we re-interpret the delete !votes to be merge !votes, we can also re-interpret the essence of the delete argument by recalling that WP:N is not satisfied just because a topic passes WP:GNG, the topic must also be "worthy of notice".  So we can still properly ask the question, "Is the topic "worthy of notice?" and question whether or not the topic should have a stand-alone article  Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge As far as establishing wp:notability, Northamerica1000's search shows online sources since 1995.  There is no need to count much past two, minimum requirements are met with more available.  In addition, we can extend the coverage using WP:NRVE (sources are "likely") with another ten years of articles available in dozens of libraries around the US that contain microfilm of the San Francisco Chronicle (see www.worldcat.org to locate libraries).  So wp:notability is not in question.  Is the topic "worthy of notice"?  Yes, except that I don't see that in the current article, and there are few links into the article, so it would be ok to merge this topic to Richmond City Council or List of members of the Richmond City Council.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2011 (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.