Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solicitor General of Washington


 * 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. Anyone terribly concerned about this not being closed as a redirect, can contact me on my talk page and I'll reconsider the close. Lourdes  04:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Solicitor General of Washington

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no presented notability on the subject of this article which has only one primary source. No other states have articles for their Solicitor General and this should either be deleted or have its redirect restored to Noah Purcell. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  04:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 (talk)  (contribs)  04:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 (talk)  (contribs)  04:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Articles on Michigan Solicitor General and Solicitor General of Ohio exist. They are linked from the Solicitor general article. Bakazaka (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:WAX is bad argument both for keep and for delete. My own WP:BEFORE failed to find anything but drive-by quotes from the present Solicitor General, and nothing about their post. I'm leaning towards delete but am interested to see if anyone else can turn up something. FOARP (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment leaning keep: a significant post with in-depth coverage, e.g. in this book. Catrìona (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * While that book is about Washington, D.C. (where the Supreme Court of the United States is), not the State of Washington, it does suggest that the office is notable in some places. Bakazaka (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And I see no presented notability on the office itself. The only notable event is when Noah Purcell used his power to fight Trump's travel ban. That is one event. As such, the redirect to Purcell should be restored as I had set it almost two years ago. ––Redditaddict69</b> <sup style="color:#339900">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(contribs)  02:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If that is the case than I'll change my vote to redirect due to insufficient coverage. Catrìona (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Besides nominator, there appears to be only one !vote (a redirect) so far.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment if the article at List of Attorneys General of Washington had more prose, it would be reasonable to discuss this there. Regardless, this needs (state) disambiguation for Washington, as this is not about DC. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  Delete Redirect (to Noah Purcell -despite a traipse through a mix of BEFORE sweeps (anyone with access to legal journals could take a look there), there seems little coverage of the office itself. I currently think there are at least two reasonable redirect targets (the list and Noah) thus picking one would be inappropriate. However I'm particularly open to someone making a good case for one being a clear redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would this be redirected to a list of Attorneys General when that is totally a different office (I assume you're talking about the Attorneys General)? Besides, there really is only one notable Washington Solicitor General: Noah Purcell. That list has nothing to do with Purcell however he is the only notable Solicitor General officeholder. I'd like to see someone argue why it shouldn't be redirected to Purcell. Every obvious reason points to it being redirected to him. ––<b style="color:#3399FF">Redditaddict69</b> <sup style="color:#339900">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(contribs)  05:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Being an idiot I missed the different position! Chetsford's argument also isn't unreasonable, but it makes sense to go the thing most looked for. Obviously as soon as we get another well-covered person in the position we'd have an argument to de-redirect it (probably to create a disambig). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I've just spent the better part of a half-hour searching for sources and can find nothing. Indeed, if it weren't for the coverage about Purcell himself and the OSG's own website, there would be no evidence this position even existed. It doesn't even appear to be an office codified under the Revised Code of Washington, but rather is an administrative creation. It doesn't have inherent notability under WP:NPOL and certainly doesn't pass the GNG. (For the record, I oppose a redirect to Purcell since he is not Solicitor-General-for-Life.) Chetsford (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Chetsford's reasoning. --Lockley (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.