Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven D. Smith


 * 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The result was speedy Keep/Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Steven D. Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional in nature. Fails WP:GNG, and no reliable sources could be found to establish notability. Smith is one of 400 New Hampshire state legislators and he doesn't look to be more notable than any one of them. Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It also looks like the user's author was warned for being too close to the subject they were writing about back in 2015, and I agree with that assessment. It's still promotional. Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  11:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  11:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. State legislators are inherently notable per WP:NPOL #1. The fact that New Hampshire's state legislature happens to be larger than many other state legislatures, with 400 members instead of 150, does not mean they get excluded from standard practice — state legislators are one of those political roles where Wikipedia has an established consensus that as long as their holding of the role is properly verifiable, they must be allowed to have articles regardless of any problems with the current state of their sourcing. There is no such thing as "state legislator who is less notable than other state legislators": as long as he's verifiably held the claimed political role, so that the article isn't an outright hoax, he stays and any issues with the article beyond that are matters for the editing process rather than the deletion process. Frex, he was first elected to office in 2010, according to the article — but 10-year-old media coverage doesn't Google all that well, and will have to be retrieved from archives or microfilms, so just Googling his name doesn't tell you the whole story. And tone problems can be fixed by rewriting for neutrality, so they aren't grounds for deletion in and of themselves either. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Member of the New Hampshire legislature. Passes WP:NPOL.--Enos733 (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn: Wasn't aware that state legislators are inherently notable. I'm not sure I agree with that ruling, but hey - if that's what it is, that's what it is. Theleekycauldron (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I do disagree that state legislators in NH are inherently notable per the current guidelines. It's tough, however, to have a different guideline for each individual state legislator. I do find it quite funny that some town's selectmen require more votes to be elected but are considered less notable. NH's house members are really local figures in my book. NH state senators are more on par with the electorate required for other states' legislatures which is the intention of the guideline. ~RAM (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The notability criteria for politicians have nothing to do with how many votes it does or doesn't take to get the job — they have to do with the significance of the work the person does after they've gotten the job, and state legislators are inherently doing work of statewide significance (voting on statewide laws, etc.) while town-level selectmen aren't. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2021 (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.