Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Larson

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) 03:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Larson

[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)

Municipal judge fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 20:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article certainly passes GNG, just check the sources. A couple even have his name in the title. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 21:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, and also WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer T·C 13:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Municipal judge is not a level of office that guarantees an article under our notability criteria for judges, and the sourcing shown here is not sufficient to deem him a special case of greater notability than the norm. WP:GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who passes an arbitrary number" — it tests the sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, not just the raw number of footnotes present. But what I'm getting from these footnotes is that they're almost exclusively local coverage in local interest contexts that aren't notability-makers, such as giving soundbite to the media in his former role as a member of the local school board, and more often than not aren't even about him, but just briefly namecheck his existence in the process of being about something else. We're not looking for how many news articles we can find that happen to have his name in them, we're looking for how many news articles we can find that are about him accomplishing something that would get him over our specific inclusion criteria for judges — and literally none of these sources fulfill the latter. Bearcat (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is being misrepresented if you think he passes it. For a super local official like this, we discount local coverage. Municipal judges are almost never notable, and there is nothing about Larson to suggest otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2021 (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.