Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted T. Barr


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Ted T. Barr

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Local elected official, fails WP:NPOL. Stikkyy t/c 23:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. County sheriff, county commissioner and school board trustee are not offices that get a person past WP:NPOL in and of themselves, and neither the substance nor the depth of sourcing shown here are enough to demonstrate that he's somehow more notable than the thousands and possibly even millions of other county-level officeholders who have existed across the United States: the references here are entirely to the local media, and the most genuinely substantive thing they have to offer is that the city named an ambulance depot after him. Big deal. For added bonus, the article was created by User:Barrandassoc, strongly implying direct conflict of interest by one of his surviving relatives — but we're not a place to memorialize your own father, grandfather, uncle, brother, whatever he was. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If this person is notable, then the COI is not a reason to delete. Contrariwise, if a subject is not notable, the lack of any COI is not a reason to retain. In short, the COI is not relevant to this discussion. The topic must stand or fall on its own merits. I haven't fully assessed those yet, nor looked for additional sources, so i have no final view on the decision. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that COI is a reason to delete in and of itself. However, it is necessary for people to be aware of the COI in the context of a deletion discussion. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:POLOUTCOMES; we rarely keep articles on local county officials, especially of smaller rural counties. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I could only find some limited local coverage for him, with no national or even statewide recognition. And since he has only ever held county-wide office, he also fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. Unfortunately not notable.--Slon02 (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2017 (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.