Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Carlucci

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. Daniel (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Carlucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a city councillor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, city councillors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to demonstrate a reason why they could be credibly considered to have far more nationalized significance than most other city councillors have -- but with 54 of the 83 footnotes here (65 per cent) being primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the rest of them being run of the mill local coverage of the type that every city councillor in every city can always show, that has not been demonstrated at all. This, further, has some advertorialized overtones, with parts of it sounding very much like this was written to actively promote his upcoming re-election campaign, which is not what Wikipedia articles about politicians are for.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from actually having to pass WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nominator. Promotional article with no sources that pass WP:NPOL. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  According to WP: POLITICIAN, "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" is met by this article. Furthermore, according to WP: NOTABILITY guidelines, "content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies," of which this article adheres. "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources," which this article also heeds in its approach to noting Jacksonville history through the timeline of a notable local politician which impacted that local history and key legislation. JaxMa (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The notability of a city councillor is not secured by the simple existence of local coverage in his own city's local media — every city councillor on the planet would always pass that test, which would render NPOL #2 meaningless because no city councillor would ever actually have to be measured against it at all anymore. A city councillor's notability is secured by showing that he has received nationalized coverage beyond just his own local media market and demonstrating a reason why he could be seen as one of the most individually important city councillors in the entire country, which has not been shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per as nom. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Fails WP:NPOL and the level of coverage is not above the amount expected for a local politician. There is a strong case that deletion under WP:TNT also applies. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP: POLITICIAN states: "a person who is 'part of the enduring historical record' will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in 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." This description describes the subject/individual as evidenced by the significant press coverage cited in the article. Additions could certainly be made to increase the amount of press coverage cited; however, as the author/contributor, I favored brevity. Regarding your statement: that "parts of it sounding very much like this was written to actively promote his upcoming re-election campaign," I must respectfully disagree. As the author/contributor, I am not a participant in this individual's campaign, and to write an article with "advertorialized overtones" for the purpose of promoting re-election would be nonsensical given this individual is running uncontested. JaxMa (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There has been a solid consensus here at Wikipedia that local politicians have to be shown to be notable. Unlike national and state politicians, who are presumed to be notable, local pols have to have quite a significant volume and depth of media coverage. Their own affiliated websites and a few mentions in the local news does not cut it. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.