Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Brint Carlton


 * 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. Consensus appears to favour deletion. Also, Brint03, please remember the discussion is solely about the page, not about other editors. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Brint Carlton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable attorney. Sole claim to fame as the youngest county judge in Orange County, Texas. There are over 3000 counties or equivalents in the US, and every one of them has a youngest, oldest, tallest, etc. judge, county supervisor, etc.; that does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Appears to have been created and lovingly curated by the subject of the article himself; contrary to both WP:RESUME and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

PROD removed by the article's creator User:Brint03, who appears to be the Stephen Brint Carlton himself, with the comment ''Still building article. More references coming. Other articles exist about current/former county judges who have done less. Appears to be no issue with 181 (part time) Texas legislators having pages.'', but that's just an unpersuasive WP:WAX argument. TJRC (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Brint03 response to TJRC: The claim to fame is not being an attorney. The "claim to fame" is as a Texas politician who is the head of the 45th most populous Texas county. The "youngest" part is an interesting fact as it was covered by media. Greater "claim to fame" is being part of a dramatic political shift in Southeast Texas and instituting policies to create the first balanced budget in well over 20 years to a County in deep financial trouble. Additionally, the County is tackling economic development in a new way to bring more jobs and prosperity to a stagnant region of the state. The totality of the education and background helps the reader to understand how and why the above changes in policy and outcomes were achieved.

As far as there being 3000 (according to you) counties or similar entities in the US, there are also 7383 (according to Wikipedia) state legislators in the US. Every one I have looked up has a page. It seems to me that county judges/administrators are twice as rare (and therefore twice as notable) as state legislators and, often, wield more influence on their constituents. Brint03 —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. For clarity, a county judge in Texas is equivalent to the head of a county commission in most U.S. states. See Commissioners' court. It's not what would normally be thought of as a judicial office. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to Metropolitan90 Comment: Your statement is partially correct. While Texas county judges do have very broad administrative powers (executive branch) and budgetary powers (legislative branch), they also have broad judicial authority to preside over a wide range of cases. See the Texas Constitution, Government Code, Local Government Code, Probate Code, etc. This is what makes county judges in Texas so unique and "notable". They often have far more influence on the lives of their constituents than state or federal legislators. Additionally, because they have so much power over a wide range of issues, it is important that constituents have an understanding of their county judge and the full extent of the office of county judge. They are also often the subject of weekly media attention and their election or defeat, especially when there is a change after 20 years, generates significant local and sometimes regional media attention. The role of a Texas county judge is often misunderstood by those who do not live it Texas.

I am open to suggestions on how to improve the article, but TJCR going straight for deletion (rather than beginning a friendly dialogue) is premature. His use of the word "lovingly" is also inflammatory and counterproductive to finding an amenable solution. Brint03Brint03 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The subject is an official in a rural county of about 80,000 people. The article is highly promotional and filled full of unreferenced assertions about details of the subject's life. This is because it seems that the subject himself wrote the article, and is writing from personal knowledge rather than summarizing reliable, independent sources, as is required. The evidence that this is an autobiography is very strong. Autobiographies are highly discouraged here on Wikipedia. The editor has a clear conflict of interest which must be declared. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to Cullen328: I am attempting to work with you guys, but there does not seem to be much reciprocation. There is an automatic jump to deletion without an attempt to work with the creator or offer helpful advice first. The provided information does come from various independent sources such as media, military records, school records, etc. It was already mentioned that more references were coming. However, I have now stripped the article down to the basics without much explanation. As before, all of the information does come from independent sources, I just need more time to enter it all. Finally, there is a misunderstanding from you guys on how notable county judges are. I have already explained. Referencing the Wikipedia page on County Commissioners is inadequate because the page is inadequate when it comes to Texas. Other county judge pages already exist for similar or smaller counties. Those judges are no more or less notable. Again, I do not understand editors who immediately jump to deletion without first working with the creator. If the creator fails to make the required changes or fails to show the importance of the page, then a discussion on deletion is warranted.Brint03 (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to . Please be aware that WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is a core Wikipedia content guideline, and it begins by saying: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged." Why do you think that experienced editors would want to "work with" you when you are engaging in self-promotional behavior that has been repeatedly disruptive for this encyclopedia for many years? If you were really interested in improving the encyclopedia, you would be improving our coverage of topics where you do not have a conflict of interest. As a county official in a county of 82,000 people, you simply do not meet WP:POLITICIAN. I am not surprised that there are other articles about non-notable county judges. Instead of adding yet another article about a non-notable politician, we should be deleting those others as well. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  15:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to Cullen328: The only issue I have is the aggressive nature in which the editors have responded. Instead of taking a little time to help the creator understand, it is instantly "delete" or "you don't meet that". I am not opposed to meeting Wikipedia standards but you guys obviously know more about those standards than most people. I have had a chance to review those standards since the first delete proposal came and I now agree with deletion. All it would have taken was for the editors to approach the issue with a little more restraint and desire to help the creator understand instead of being confrontational. I have no issue with deletion.Brint03 (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow up comment: Not sure how long it takes to fully delete the article, but I have removed all information other than name, office, and duties of the office until final deletion. I would remove the rest, but the instructions are to not blank the article.Brint03 (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete some say Wikipedia editors approach such issues "aggresively". However the fact of the matter is the project gets cluttered with minor, tandendential articles. In this case, a county judge is the top administrator of a county. As best I understand it, a county judge in Texas is somewhat like a mayor who heads a city commission. They are the first among equals of the 5 legislative/executive leaders of the county. The question is then are county judges default notable, and I still think the answer is no (I answer the same for the mayor of my own city which has more inhabitants than Carlton's county). The sources here do not meet general notability guidelines criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if County judges were anywhere near notable I would still delete this article with fire because it is an autobiography. We need to send the message loud and clear that no matter how important one things they are, they should never create an article on themselves in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment to editors: You guys do realize Wikipedia is not, nor will it ever be, a legitimate encyclopedia, right? No reputable person, researcher, nor institution of higher learning would ever accept anything in here as reliable. They would at best go and read the references. Wikipedia is nothing more than a place to start looking or entertainment. The reason for this is precisely because it can be edited by anybody at anytime. The fact you guys volunteer to help is nice, but the vitriol some of you express towards people who are not as familiar with the standards as you is laughable. As best I can tell, Wikipedia is for everybody to contribute. If the standard for Wikipedia is to not allow autobiographies, then make them forbidden. However, that is not the standard. The standard is highly discouraged. There is a world of difference between the two (one is allowed, the other not allowed). All you guys will do is encourage people to pretend to be somebody else if they want a page. If it is highly discouraged, but not forbidden, then relay that to the creator and give guidance on how to make it better if they believe they can meet the standards. If they then do not meet standards, go ahead and initiate deletion. Going immediately to delete or expressimg contempt is not the answer. New creators are not aware of all of the frustration you guys have or years of this or that you have put up with. I have already said I no longer object to deleting the article. I spent more time looking over the standards and I see the downfall is the autobiography. I still think you are mistaken on the notability part but we can agree to disagree. I looked up other county judge pages first to see if they existed and they do. How is a creator to then know that you do not feel a county judge is notable? The big problem is the subjectivity of "notable" or "significant" media coverage. You can elimiate the problem by making Wikipedia for state and higher level officials only. There is a lot of subjectivity in Wikipedia standards and I guess as editors, you guys get to decide. However, referencing Wikipedia articles as your source of determining reliable information in making any kind of determination is concerning. Anyways, I appreciate what you guys do because I enjoy being entertained by Wikipedia just as much as the next person.Brint03 (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * comment I find this paragraph disturbing, as much for its errors in deciphering why the article was nominated as for its attacks on the editors. The fact that this article is an autobiography is not the main reason for the nomination, and in fact, even if a completely different person had written it, it would still be a candidate for deletion. Also, I see no signs of "vitriol" except from the article writer himself. You can say there is a lot of subjectivity in Wikipedia standards, and that's true, but you miss the greater truth: every encyclopedia includes or omits articles based on subjective standards - they're just standards set by a smaller group of people. Also, you don't have a way to argue with those encyclopedia editors when they don't include your article.  Here, you do, but maybe you should carefully consider in the future what kind of argument you're making. This one didn't make much sense. CrispyGlover (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The only reason autobiographical articles are "strongly discouraged", rather than outright banned altogether, on Wikipedia is that occasionally an autobiographical article gets created by a person who actually does meet all the necessary standards to have a Wikipedia article — so in those instances, we just clean the article up for compliance with our content policies instead of deleting it entirely. (Recent example: Articles for deletion/Kevin Hardcastle.) It does not mean every individual person who exists at all is entitled to ignore the rule just because it says "strongly discouraged" instead of "always expressly forbidden"; the article is still subject to all of our normal content rules, and can still be deleted if the necessary levels of notability and sourceability just aren't there to repair it with. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Local official (county judge) but without full sourcing. Need full sourcing to qualify as a local official.64.134.51.41 (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication that the notability guidelines set forth in WP:POLITICIAN are met. I find no substantive coverage in third-party sources to suggest that WP:GNG is met here. -- Kinu  t/c 17:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Local official that fails WP:POLITICIAN, not close to meeting WP:GNG, and the problems raised by WP:RESUME and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY were already noted above. Agree with the other delete voters on all points. CrispyGlover (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. County-level judges do not get an automatic WP:NPOL pass just because they exist, and no reliable source coverage has been shown to get him over WP:GNG in lieu — of the two "sources" here, one is his own primary source profile on the county's own website, and the other is Ballotpedia, a user-generated content site which includes content about every single candidate for any elected office in the entire United States, and thus doesn't constitute proof of notability per se. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL; a weakly sourced vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2016 (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.