Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilbur Ternyik


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  13:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Wilbur Ternyik

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Small town mayor who doesn't pass WP:NPOLITICIAN, and not enough in-depth coverage to show he meets WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Florence OR is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but the article is not sourced well enough to demonstrate that Wilbur Ternyik should be considered a special case over and above most other mayors of most other places this size. Every mayor who exists at all could always show two obituaries and an exit interview in the local media, so that's not enough coverage in and of itself to make a smalltown mayor notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  talk  07:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I've begun to add content and citations supporting his notability with his role in the Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission, which led to legislation protecting the entire Oregon Coast. More sources are available off-line, but IRL I haven't time this week to get to the library. Others may be able to help this week? Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You would need to be able to source that work to media coverage, not to the Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission's own self-published content about itself, before it counted as a notability booster. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been linked at the Talk page of WikiProject Oregon. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - as above and per nom. Dreamy Jazz talk &#124; contribs 21:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have added to the content of the article. I agree Ternyk does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN, but I believe the added sources support WP:GNG. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete the coverage is all to local and often not indepdent of Ternyik at all. Nothing adds to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment: !Voters should take note of the continuing expansion of the article, incorporating more sources. Early participants in this discussion seem to have mistakenly concluded that Ternyik's status as mayor was intended as a component of the claim for notability. His significance lies primarily in his leadership in coastal planning, which influenced Oregon's landmark land use legislation; his influence extended beyond Oregon's borders as well. The "local sources" argument advanced above is not based in any Wikipedia policy; if a source is reliable, it can contribute to notability. Regardless, the sources go well beyond merely "local." The Register-Guard is one of the premier papers in the state (consult the Wikipedia article linked), and contains a more in-depth writeup than those currently cited in the article. The Oregonian was up until very recently the most widely-circulated paper in the Pacific Northwest. Ternyik is also present in a variety of scholarly articles and a few books. Before nominating an article for deletion, it's worthwhile to conduct some basic searches and check in with the primary authors. -Pete Forsyth (talk)
 * The only Oregonian source in the article is his obituary which wasn't even written by a staff member, so it's not independent of the subject. SportingFlyer  talk  19:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to do your own research; adding sources to the article takes time. Some Oregonian dates to consider: March 22, 1959; October 25, 1968 (passing mention, supporter of Wayne Morse re-election); September 19, 1971; January 19, 1972; April 19, 1975; February 23, 1980; March 22, 1986; etc. etc. There are about 30 hits in the Oregonian on a basic Newsbank search. However, as I argued above, this is hardly necessary when there are multiple mentions in local papers, the Register Guard, scholarly references, book mentions, etc. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC) (Sorry if that was a bit testy -- I do agree that an obituary is not the best source. But much better sources are not at all hard to find, many have been added to the article since the AFD started already, but that point remains unacknowledged. Anyway, I'll get back to building the article. There are plenty of other excellent source materials to incorporate, and I think my time is better spent on that than on this discussion. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC) )


 * Keep - but it needs to have a clearly stated connection between his coastal land use advocacy and the larger context state-wide and beyond. YBG (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think he easily meets WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete borderline notable at best and highly promotional. All the arguments above trying to show how important he is are really showing how much publicity he has managed to acquire for his local activities. Ths is at attempt to bring his local publicity to a wider audience, but wp should not be doing that. There's  no indication of the necessary broader influencew to support it.   DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I need to modify this, after re-reading Pete Forsyth's comments..

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draftify for improvements Probably borderline notability, and the article has an effect of being promotional.  It  reads like an attempt to bring his local publicity to a wider audience.  Unfortunately, the prevalence of promotional writing in local politics articles (and in other areas in WP), can lead to articles unintentionally following that style. We have to judge the article, not the intent, in determining whether to keep it, but recognizing the intent can lead to a different solution--purely promotional writing from a promotional intent should be deleted, not fixed, as the only way to discourage promotionalism ; accidentally or mistakenly promotional  writing needs to be fixed, and the availability of draft space provides a place for fixing it in those cases where it cannot be done immediately. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

To respond to 's comment above: I generally take these comments as healthy criticism of an imperfect and growing article. (mostly) and I (to a lesser extent) have continued to improve the article and introduce new source materials. Constructive feedback is very welcome, though I don't think in this case it justifies deletion. For my !vote:

Keep: Ternyik has been the central subject of articles in the Register-Guard, the Oregonian, Oregon Coast Magazine, The Daily Astorian, and a number of more local papers. These articles span both policy-focused articles centering on his work, and personality/feature style articles. Dozens of other articles treat his work as a significant component, if not their central concern. Books and academic publications have noted his work as well. I realize that Wikipedia editors may have difficulty evaluating many of these articles, as they are not available on the open web; but libraries and newspaper archiving services do contain them, so they amply meet the requirements of WP:V. The notion that "local" papers do not count toward notability is not captured in Wikipedia policy; but even so, it would be inaccurate to describe the Oregonian, the Register-Guard, the Capital Journal (aka Statesman Journal), or the Daily Astorian as "merely local." These are all longstanding papers with readership and coverage well beyond their own municipalities, and the first two have won significant awards.

I encourage fellow editors to consult the Wikipedia article (a longtime GA) on The Register-Guard, which has won multiple regional and statewide awards, was nominated for a Pulitzer prize, was one of only four papers nationally to take a stand against actions of the McCarthy committee in the 1950s, and has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service. Though this paper happens to cover the county Ternyik lived in, it is no mere local paper. Like the better-known Oregonian, it has covered Ternyik on a number of occasions, but the 2006 news article "For years, Wilbur Ternyik has been a powerful advocate for the Oregon Coast" appears to be the most comprehensive profile published, and provides a thorough overview of his career. If anyone is interested, I would be happy to email the text of this article.

I appreciate the feedback that has come in this discussion, though much of it might have been more helpful as commentary on the talk page. I believe the article has improved substantially during the AfD period based on the concerns raised. (Expanding number and quality of sources, stating core of notability claim more clearly, and including a bit of commentary critical of Ternyik's approach.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * keep...meet GNG Emily Khine (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 06:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It appears that there is a substantive, reliably-sourced article about the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2018 (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.