Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester Bankston

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. Not at a level for WP:NPOL option 1 and lacks coverage for NPOL option 2 or WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Bankston

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Local politician with no SIGCOV. All press mentions are incidental. Rogermx (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County commissioners are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist — a county commissioner might occasionally get into Wikipedia if they either (a) can be properly referenced as having had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of their office, and/or (b) can be referenced to a depth and volume and geographic range of coverage that clearly demonstrates him as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other county councillors, but this satisfies neither of those conditions. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a WP:MILL county councillor. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added references, categories and infobox to the article. But so far I am not seeing a compelling case. Lightburst (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 211.243.200.191 (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC) — 211.243.200.191 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please read WP:JUSTAVOTE. It's not enough to just say "keep"; you need to provide policy-based reasons to demonstrate why the article should be kept. Bearcat (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of this user's "contributions" are AFD discussions. Rogermx (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I sometimes argue for keeping a county commissioner, but in this case I am not seeing especially notable achievements, and I note that the population of the county is only 364,000.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I researched this commissioner and found no notability. Lightburst (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are thousands of county and township commissioners. Even if he were notable, which he's not, this page has too many typos to edit easily. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do have to point out that being a township commissioner is a lot lower level than being a county comissioner. However considering that we are no where near having articles on most state legislators, except those who served since the creation of Wikipedia, and we are lacking articles on most members of the legislature of Zaire or Ghana, allowing random creation of articles on county commisioners will only make Wikipedia more US centric and more presentist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2019 (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.