| Revision as of 17:59, 2 June 2020 editAhecht (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators64,901 edits reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:02, 2 June 2020 edit undoUsedtobecool (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers28,818 edits →Lee Myxter: KTag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| ** ] is a guideline, not a rule. Per ]: {{tq|meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included}}. --] (]) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC) | ** ] is a guideline, not a rule. Per ]: {{tq|meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included}}. --] (]) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' per my stated rationale. It is also irrelevant that the article creator is under a restriction, since it is that very restriction which forces them through the AfC process; still, since WP:BMB does not apply, an editor's restrictions are a distraction at best. ]]] 17:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per my stated rationale. It is also irrelevant that the article creator is under a restriction, since it is that very restriction which forces them through the AfC process; still, since WP:BMB does not apply, an editor's restrictions are a distraction at best. ]]] 17:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' clearly meets NPOL. I will emphasize that NPOL is not just any old SNG. I point to footnote 12 linked from there, which reads "this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." So, this goes above and beyond just "a claim to notability that hints at a strong possibility that GNG can be met with a deep enough dig". '''] ]''' 18:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:02, 2 June 2020
Lee Myxter
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Lee Myxter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Micro stub which does not appear to reach the WP:NPOL requirement for Significant coverage. References at this time consist of Legislature directory page, An "independent" directory page, and a trivial mention in a list of many election returns. This was page was created by an editor who is currently subject to editing restrictions regarding creation of pages. Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep: this is ridiculous. You cite NPOL, but have you actually read it? Lee Myxter held a "state/province–wide office" as proven by a government website. That means he's clearly notable. TryKid 17:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NPOL is a guideline, not a rule. Per the top of the section that includes NPOL:
meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included
. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NPOL is a guideline, not a rule. Per the top of the section that includes NPOL:
- Keep per my stated rationale. It is also irrelevant that the article creator is under a restriction, since it is that very restriction which forces them through the AfC process; still, since WP:BMB does not apply, an editor's restrictions are a distraction at best. ——Serial 17:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep clearly meets NPOL. I will emphasize that NPOL is not just any old SNG. I point to footnote 12 linked from there, which reads "this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." So, this goes above and beyond just "a claim to notability that hints at a strong possibility that GNG can be met with a deep enough dig". Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)