Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Steinbrueck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. — OcatecirT 01:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Steinbrueck

Peter Steinbrueck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

NN bio. Prod was removed by anon with the comment "you can verify biographic details and check license status very easily. Agree he is unimportant though" so I'm not even sure the annon disagrees with the idea that the subject fails WP:BIO. Also, there has been an ongoing WP:BLP issue with the article and a WP:OTRS complaint. A deletion would happily wrap up all the loose ends. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Note, I'm no longer supporting deletion. I'm not withdrawing since there are still supporters for deletion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete NN person who's just a member of the City Counsel of a city. That doesn't satisfy inclusion in Wiki w/o any notable works --sumnjim talk with me·changes 14:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Doesn't pass the WP:BIO bar for politicians, BLP/OTRS issues or otherwise.  RGTraynor  18:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Capmango 22:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. A prominent councilman of a major city who meets WP:BIO politician criterion #2: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] (where the Seattle Times describes him as "one of Seattle's most popular politicians") - Keith D. Tyler 18:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd feel a lot better about those links if they weren't almost all blogs or websites, as opposed to reprints from reliable sources.  RGTraynor  19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a scanner or a collection of backissues, but represented therein (and a few now on the article page) are The Stranger, the Seattle Times, KUOW, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, not merely blogs, but websites showing articles from major Seattle publications. I would really find it arduous to have to establish for you the notability of those publications to the Seattle area. The argument so far against this article, aside from the unexplained OTRS issue which history suggests has already been resolved, and the BLP issue which is likewise not explained, sounds a lot like WP:IDONTKNOWIT. It'd be ideal for the purposes of well-informed AFD if those two unmentioned issues were mentioned instead of vaguely alluded to. - Keith D. Tyler 19:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't explain any more about the WP:OTRS/WP:BLP issues other then to say that problems have happened previously and there is concern that they will reappear. If that doesn't matter to you then don't take it into consideration. I just threw it out there because it's one of the reasons why this popped up on my radar.
In light if your sources and improvements to the article I'm no longer supporting deletion. However, I would like to say that only about half of the sources you listed are valid in establishing notability. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:33, 11 June 2007 (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.