Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Town Managers of Saugus Massachusetts


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Town Manager of Saugus, Massachusetts
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not meet notability guidelines. Moreover, each town manager doesn't fulfill criteria of WP:BIO. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 1.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  14:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redlink, never existed. Did you mean to nominate Town Manager of Saugus, Massachusetts instead?  Morwen - Talk 15:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Sir, yes that is the article I intended to nominate for deletion. Thank you. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'm not a sir.  You going to do that, then?  Morwen - Talk 16:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Procedural comment. This nomination was a mess.  I have added the AFD notice to the article and have cleaned up the links here so that they actually point to where they belong.  In an effort to avoid moving an active AFD page, I've left this in its misnamed state.  Participants and the closing admin should note that the page under discussion is Town Manager of Saugus, Massachusetts (singular manager, comma), but the AFD page is titled with plural "managers" and no comma.  There were arguably cleaner ways to do this involving a page move and a housekeeping CSD of the resultant redirect, but at least all the links work now.  I have absolutely no opinion regarding the merits of this nomination, only wanting the redlinks gone and an end to the WP:DUCKSEASON over who should make it so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Office and many who have held it have been the subject of significant coverage in The Boston Globe and other reliable sources                 --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Well, I wouldn't consider those small blurbs in newspapers (even reliable ones) "significant coverage" but we'll have to get some other eyes to give us perspective. Moreover, what exactly makes all these city managers so notable? None of them seem to clear the hurtle of notability and thus the impetus of your page is weak at best. I could be wrong, though. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: on numerous grounds. First off, the article plainly fails WP:GEOSCOPE going away.  Secondly, notability is not inherited.  Thirdly, the article absolutely falls far under the threshold set by WP:POLITICIAN for notability; the appointed individuals managing small state or provincial cities just don't cut it, when the threshold is "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."   Ravenswing   05:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Didn't even consider WP:GEOSCOPE when I nominated the article, but good point.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - GEOSCOPE? POLITICIAN? each town manager not fulfill criteria of WP:BIO requires the article to be deleted rather than deciding whether the manager's name should be listed in the article? Really? notability is not inherited? not inherited from what? The article is about the chief administrative manager position in Saugus, Massachusetts. The article sources at present go from 1947, 1950, 1952 all the way to 2012 and are sufficient in themselves to meet WP:GNG. Hirolovesswords' cites above are sufficient for the topic to meet WP:GNG. In news articles only having the topic in their name, the topic meets WP:GNG as having sufficient coverage for a stand alone article:
 * The position has had a rich and colorful history since its creation in 1947 and Wikipedia is a great place to bring that out. I don't see any basis for deleting per importance/significance under WP:NOT.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's a strong irony in your last paragraph, insofar as you're claiming things specifically cited under WP:NOT as being invalid grounds to keep; Wikipedia is not a webhost for the town of Saugus, and whether anyone or anything's history is "rich and colorful" or not has no bearing on any notability ground. As far as notability not being inherited, the glaringly obvious answer is that these articles being thrown up fail the requirements of the GNG. Any citation must discuss the subject in "significant detail" ... but these cites don't do that, do they?  They quote someone holding the position (something specifically barred by the GNG as supporting notability), or they're about someone holding the position, but they don't discuss the position itself in the required detail. That being said, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:POLITICIAN stands on their own and needs no reiteration here.  The position is far under the level of WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:GEOSCOPE wouldn't be satisfied if you came up with a thousand cites from small town dailies.   Ravenswing   00:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The position has had a rich and colorful history since its creation in 1947 and Wikipedia is a great place to bring that out. I don't see any basis for deleting per importance/significance under WP:NOT.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's a strong irony in your last paragraph, insofar as you're claiming things specifically cited under WP:NOT as being invalid grounds to keep; Wikipedia is not a webhost for the town of Saugus, and whether anyone or anything's history is "rich and colorful" or not has no bearing on any notability ground. As far as notability not being inherited, the glaringly obvious answer is that these articles being thrown up fail the requirements of the GNG. Any citation must discuss the subject in "significant detail" ... but these cites don't do that, do they?  They quote someone holding the position (something specifically barred by the GNG as supporting notability), or they're about someone holding the position, but they don't discuss the position itself in the required detail. That being said, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:POLITICIAN stands on their own and needs no reiteration here.  The position is far under the level of WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:GEOSCOPE wouldn't be satisfied if you came up with a thousand cites from small town dailies.   Ravenswing   00:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The position has had a rich and colorful history since its creation in 1947 and Wikipedia is a great place to bring that out. I don't see any basis for deleting per importance/significance under WP:NOT.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's a strong irony in your last paragraph, insofar as you're claiming things specifically cited under WP:NOT as being invalid grounds to keep; Wikipedia is not a webhost for the town of Saugus, and whether anyone or anything's history is "rich and colorful" or not has no bearing on any notability ground. As far as notability not being inherited, the glaringly obvious answer is that these articles being thrown up fail the requirements of the GNG. Any citation must discuss the subject in "significant detail" ... but these cites don't do that, do they?  They quote someone holding the position (something specifically barred by the GNG as supporting notability), or they're about someone holding the position, but they don't discuss the position itself in the required detail. That being said, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:POLITICIAN stands on their own and needs no reiteration here.  The position is far under the level of WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:GEOSCOPE wouldn't be satisfied if you came up with a thousand cites from small town dailies.   Ravenswing   00:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The position has had a rich and colorful history since its creation in 1947 and Wikipedia is a great place to bring that out. I don't see any basis for deleting per importance/significance under WP:NOT.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's a strong irony in your last paragraph, insofar as you're claiming things specifically cited under WP:NOT as being invalid grounds to keep; Wikipedia is not a webhost for the town of Saugus, and whether anyone or anything's history is "rich and colorful" or not has no bearing on any notability ground. As far as notability not being inherited, the glaringly obvious answer is that these articles being thrown up fail the requirements of the GNG. Any citation must discuss the subject in "significant detail" ... but these cites don't do that, do they?  They quote someone holding the position (something specifically barred by the GNG as supporting notability), or they're about someone holding the position, but they don't discuss the position itself in the required detail. That being said, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:POLITICIAN stands on their own and needs no reiteration here.  The position is far under the level of WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:GEOSCOPE wouldn't be satisfied if you came up with a thousand cites from small town dailies.   Ravenswing   00:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The position has had a rich and colorful history since its creation in 1947 and Wikipedia is a great place to bring that out. I don't see any basis for deleting per importance/significance under WP:NOT.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's a strong irony in your last paragraph, insofar as you're claiming things specifically cited under WP:NOT as being invalid grounds to keep; Wikipedia is not a webhost for the town of Saugus, and whether anyone or anything's history is "rich and colorful" or not has no bearing on any notability ground. As far as notability not being inherited, the glaringly obvious answer is that these articles being thrown up fail the requirements of the GNG. Any citation must discuss the subject in "significant detail" ... but these cites don't do that, do they?  They quote someone holding the position (something specifically barred by the GNG as supporting notability), or they're about someone holding the position, but they don't discuss the position itself in the required detail. That being said, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:POLITICIAN stands on their own and needs no reiteration here.  The position is far under the level of WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:GEOSCOPE wouldn't be satisfied if you came up with a thousand cites from small town dailies.   Ravenswing   00:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The position has had a rich and colorful history since its creation in 1947 and Wikipedia is a great place to bring that out. I don't see any basis for deleting per importance/significance under WP:NOT.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's a strong irony in your last paragraph, insofar as you're claiming things specifically cited under WP:NOT as being invalid grounds to keep; Wikipedia is not a webhost for the town of Saugus, and whether anyone or anything's history is "rich and colorful" or not has no bearing on any notability ground. As far as notability not being inherited, the glaringly obvious answer is that these articles being thrown up fail the requirements of the GNG. Any citation must discuss the subject in "significant detail" ... but these cites don't do that, do they?  They quote someone holding the position (something specifically barred by the GNG as supporting notability), or they're about someone holding the position, but they don't discuss the position itself in the required detail. That being said, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:POLITICIAN stands on their own and needs no reiteration here.  The position is far under the level of WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:GEOSCOPE wouldn't be satisfied if you came up with a thousand cites from small town dailies.   Ravenswing   00:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand "Wikipedia is not a webhost for the town of Saugus". The topic clearly has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The significant coverage discusses the position itself and how it has changed over time in required detail and discuss how that position has been used over time by the people who have occupied it. The article should be kept so that a representative survey of that significant coverage can be detailed in the article. The position is not supposed to meet the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN because the town manager position is not a human being. The position is not supposed to meet the requirements of WP:GEOSCOPE because the town manager position is not an event. News stories are not composed only of quotes of someone holding the position. They provide the who, what, where, how, why, and when of the topic over time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Boston Globe articles "Saugus has a great tradition... can he manage to end it?", "Saugus Gets 12th Manager in 14 Years", "Saugus Elects Town Manager", and the books "Modernizing local government in Massachusetts" and "An Analysis of Tenure and Termination of Town Managers in Saugus, Massachusetts" do discuss the subject in significant detail and meet WP:GNG requirements. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator: Uza Gamal asked about the relevance of WP:GEOSCOPE here. It says "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely, but does not automatically assure it" Now, this article lacks any national or international coverage (despite claims of "substantial coverage"). So we are left with only local coverage. Of a topic not notable, and article that doesn't meet WP:GNG. And, for the record, why don't you read WP:NOT closely and carefully. Because I am glad you mentioned it as it reiterates why this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia but I am not sure if you understand the rationale of my nomination.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like a reasonably important and well-reported position for Saugus, both now and historically. Meets the GNG.    Th e S te ve   07:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep — meets WP:GNG, unable to find a reason not to include from links cited by other !voters. — Theo polisme  00:46, 17 November 2012 (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.