Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Elrich (2nd nomination)

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. Michig (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Elrich (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)

Was AfD'd back in April. Recently recreated in the very promotional manner now on the page. Looks at the history, and you can see that the article was created for promotional reasons, since "While he is likely to win and has served the community for many years, he does not have a wikipedia page, meanwhile his opponents do." The G4 speedy tag without rationale, so here we are. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I knew this name sounded familiar. (He’s from my state.) He has reliable sources out there like Washington Post and WTOP (probably the most trusted news source around here), and significant coverage (but currently this article is relying heavily on WaPo). If someone is willing to fix the promotional tone, then I say keep it.Trillfendi (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A quick google of the name came up with quite a bit of press, looks sufficient for notability. The promo mess needs to be cleaned up, but that means it needs to be fixed, not deleted. XeroxKleenex (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - some pruning has taken it from insanely to moderately (a full blown axe will be needed to get it down to even mildly) promotional, so I no longer think it warrants deletion on those grounds. Thus we then get to notability issue. Now the coverage mentioned by @Trillfendi and XeroxKleenex: exists, but it also did for the last AfD - at that point it was strongly agreed that being a councillor of the county was insufficient under the strict WP:NPOV rules. However, he has |now been elected for the county executive position. This position can veto legislation as well as executive authority so must be like a mayor. Given the population for the county, this seems to be a sufficient position as regards WP:NPOV - unless someone disagrees?. Nosebagbear (talk)
• Delete. Mere candidacy was definitely not a legitimate reason for the article to have been returned to mainspace when it was — but at the county level of government, even having now won the election still isn't enough in and of itself. Immediate notability upon declaration of election attaches only to officeholders at the federal or state levels, not at the county or city council levels — at the county council level, the notability test is neither "automatic freebie upon winning election" nor "the range and volume and depth of media coverage that is simply expected to exist for any county councillor indeed exists", but "the person can be sourced to a range and volume and depth of media coverage that plainly marks him out as approaching nationalized notability." But that's not present here at all — there's not even one source here that moves beyond the purely local, and the majority of them aren't even about him to any non-trivial degree either, but just mention his name in the process of being bog-standard political coverage of the council as a whole. The only ones that focus on him at all are campaign coverage, which again is simply expected to exist in the local media for every candidate in every election and thus does not automatically constitute evidence that any particular candidacy is special at all.
  So no, the office he has been elected to is not one that guarantees him automatic inclusion rights just for holding that office — it's one where the notability test is the ability to mark him out as a special case who is more notable than most other people who hold the equivalent office in other counties, but none of the sourcing here is doing that at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article definitely needs to be cleaned up, but he is now the executive of a very large county, not a failed candidate or very minor officeholder. There is already significant coverage in reliable sources (e.g. Washington Post), something that is likely to increase going forward. Ultimately, with re-writes to improve POV, keeping the article does nothing to hurt Wikipedia but can hurt the ability of people to learn more about their local elected officials. PrimaPrime (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The merely expected range and depth and volume of local coverage is not enough to make a county officeholder notable in and of itself — every county executive in every county can always show as much local coverage as this, because covering local politics is local media's job. So the notability test for officeholders at the county level is not just "local coverage exists", it is "coverage beyond the local, mounting a credible claim of nationalized significance, exists" — but nothing which would get him over that bar is being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's source-bombed and promotional: much of the coverage of him specifically is trivial, and there are a lot of references which don't matter. There's a good feature article on him, though. SportingFlyer talk 04:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs a major rewrite, top to bottom, to say the least. However, Elrich certainly merits an article (for example, his predecessor Leggett has one) and I'm not really comfortable with the precedent a deletion would provide. Again, a major rewrite is needed, however. Westroopnerd (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isiah Leggett has an article for having been state-level chair of the Democratic Party, not for having been a county executive per se. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per Bearcat and Sportingflyer. Per WP:AUD, coverage must exist past the merely routine local stuff to give any indication of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although Mr Elrich is a local politician, I see that Wikipedia has many many entries for people who do not rise above the level of local politician or local celebrity. Montgomery County is a large and heavily populated county in the US, with a budget that is larger than that of several states. There is a long list of Montgomery County politicians included on Wikipedia, few of which have any more claim to fame than Mr Elrich. If Mr Elrich's entry is to be deleted for non-relevance, a similar argument can be made for (to name a few) Isiah Leggett, Doug Duncan, Neal Potter, Sidney A. Katz, Charles W. Gilchrist, Nancy Navarro, Nancy Floreen, Robin Ficker, etc. Although a few of these have risen to slightly higher state level politics, many have not.Magates63 (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Please note that this editor has a total of 5 edits, and now appears at an AfD discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Not sure why the number of edits I have or have not made is relevant, as there is a big red box on this article requesting input on whether or not it should be deleted. Didn't know the discussion was limited to the cognoscenti. WP:DNB All Montgomery County Executives, of which Elrich is now the latest, have been warranted significant enough to have separate wikipedia entries. Simply trying to understand why this particular Executive is deemed less worthy than others with similar levels of national non-notability. Is the request for deletion politically motivated? Anyways, back to my life! Ciao!.Magates63 (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup I was a delete vote in the first AfD, but the subject is now the executive-elect of Montgomery County. I continue to believe that county executives must be evaluated on their own merit, as I believe a county executive of a county of at least regional prominence, merits an article when it can be said more that "Jane Doe was the County Executive of X." In this case, there is significant amounts of independent coverage that can piece together a solid article, even if nearly all of the coverage is local. --Enos733 (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The position in a significant county alone should make him notable. Most of his predecessors are notable. Even his opponents, aspiring to this as their highest political position, are already notable. I see enough local sources to achieve WP:GNG. The succession of executives in adjacent large counties are similarly notable, which make one question why this one is singled out to be under attack. I see others have the same question. Trackinfo (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2018 (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.