Jan H. Gardner

Jan H. Gardner (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)

County executive, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Rusf10 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per WP:GNG. She is the first female officeholder, inaugural officeholder, has distinguished career in business. Article is well sourced and adequately cited.Bangabandhu (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC) 22:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, she's the first female office holder because the position was just created. If the next person elected to the position is a man, does he automatically get an article too because he is the first male? All the sources are local and routine which does not pass WP:NPOL.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10's point is well taken. But, just for the record, Clinton's loss sparks surge of interest in electing Md. women, Wiggins, Ovetta. The Washington Post; 11 Dec 2016: C.6. describes her as one of only 2 women who "hold the top elected post in the state's 24 main jurisdictions" My point is that she gets discussed in the press quite a lot and for a range of reasons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EMG! I wasn't going to reply to that comment because I thought a response would give such a silly comment way more weight than it deserved. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sourced, good article, meets GNG. --Doncram (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Doncram (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Which sources are good in your opinion? SportingFlyer talk 07:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - excuse my ignorance but can anyone give an equivalent to a county executive in other countries? I'm very slightly concerned that this might be creep towards articles about every head of every governmental body. Eg: I think we generally only accept mayors of particularly significant cities etc but, while I don't think this person is a mayor, we may be setting a precedent for a considerable broadening of scope. I don't think Doncram would disagree if I say that they and I often disagree about inclusionism/deletionism when it comes to this sort of thing. I also don't think that being a woman creates some sort of additional element of notability unless sources focus on that: indeed, I am absolutely fed up of gender being touted as a basis for some sort of dilution of notability requirements, regardless of which gender it may be. I'm also not seeing why "inaugural" anything counts - I could be the inaugural serial opposer at Wikipedia AfDs but would not in itself make me notable, merely (in this example) possibly a curmudgeon. No comment about the business side of things - that topic area is renowned for puffery, paid editing etc and I'm generally fairly poor at spotting it. The sourcing generally looks pretty poor - passing mentions in failed elections, non-independent, trivial etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Doncram makes a good point. With county executives and mayors of small to medium sized cities, the scope of Wikipedia has been getting quite large. But Gardner is just one of the many now. If we drop her from Wikipedia, we have to drop plenty of others, such as former Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz. So I vote to keep.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Folklore1 (talk • contribs) 9:53, May 23, 2018 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Folklore1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

Fine, but who are you? -The Gnome (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a point of information, we don't have to drop others - it's a question of individual notability here. Deb (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What point does Doncram make? Keep because it has sources and I like the article, so it meets WP:GNG? Your argument is based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From a cursory glance, Kevin Kamenetz would pass WP:GNG. Your analogy is flawed. SportingFlyer talk 07:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete County executives are just not defult notable, and we lack enough sourcing to show she is otherwise notable. I am now thinking I would support deleting our article on Warren Evans, unless people can find lots of coverage of him outside the Detroit Metro Area. The problem is that not only can I not explain what the equivalanet of a county executive is in another country, it is a hit and miss office in the United States. Some counties have instead a county mayor, some counties have a county judge (which in some places, such as Missouri, is an executive not a judicial office, a distinction that exists in the US but not in some other countries), and many places do not have one person who holds the top executive office. It might be somewhat like a sherrif in England, although I am not sure if they even still have sherrif's. In the US a sheirrif is only over law enforcement, he is basically the chief of police for a county, but unlike most city chiefs of police is normally elected directly by the people, as opposed to being an appointee of someone else. I only really understand the system in Michigan. In Michigan, we have 83 counties. Only 3 of them have a county executive. In the case of Oakland County, Michigan with over 1 million people L. Brookes Patterson is clearly notable. However he has been the dominate political force in Oakland County for about 40 years. In the case of macomb County, we have Mark Hackell who I derisively call King Hackell. He basically manipulated the situation to create the office so he could have it. Before that he was county sherriff, a position he essentially inherited from his father after his father went to prison for rape. I hate the nepositsm inherent in the system. Hackell has tried his best to destroy the closest thing he has to a political rival, James Fouts, mayor of our counties largest city, but creating fraudulent recordings of Fouts speech to smear him. This was in response to Fouts having exposed Hackell for breaking the law. In Wayne County Warren Evans is executive, however in most ways he is always playing second string to Detroit Mayor Michael Duggin. Detroit has over half the county population. One key factor is that the sherrif has little control over law enforcement, he runs the county jail, and in some counties his deputies are local police for most of the less developed areas. In Wayne County, the main local police funtion done by the sheirrif is policing Detroit City buses. However the county prosecutor, also directly elected, can serve as a counter balance to all political power misuse. Kym Worthy as county prosecutor in Wayne County was the key person in sending "King" Kwame Kilpatrick to jail. Well, ok, it was Kilpatrick's constant breaking of the law that sent him there, and it was his assaulting a police officer and adding insult to injury by telling the African-American police officer that she should be ashamed to have a partner named white (he was a white man as well), that just brought Kwame crashing down, not his perjury, although he is now serving federal corruption charges. Worthy probably handled enough notable cases back when she was asssitant prosecutor to be notable, but she has also handled several widely publicized cases as county prosecutor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment when an article quotes from a subject's person bio to say what they are most proud of, it is too dependet on the subject for information, and shows that the subject is not actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yikes. She's a local county executive so needs to pass #2 in WP:NPOL or WP:GNG and she doesn't come close. There are 17 citations in the article. Seven are election results and can be discarded. Of the remaining ten, none are independently about her outside of the context of her campaign. One is for her own website, one is an opinion piece, one's a primary source from the state of Maryland, one's a four-sentence article on the winners of the seats on the council and mention more than just her, et cetera. The Washington Post is the best source in the entire article and it's an absolute WP:MILL article. Flagrantly terrible sourcing for a position which needs good sourcing to get past WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 07:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I feel like I don't know enough about American local politics to vote as to whether she's notable, but it does seem to me that the article is somewhat biased towards her achievements and needs a bit of NPOV improvement if it's going to stay. Deb (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Deb (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
• Delete on account of subject failing WP:NPOLITICIAN. The text contains interesting information but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -The Gnome (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I ran a search and added a little material on her political positions. She's anti-growth in a county where development appears to be the big issue, but there is a remarkable amount of coverage of her positions available in the Baltimore Sun, WaPo and other media. I only added a little. Mostly, I read enough to satisfy myself that this article could grow into a useful portrait of a county executive. Search tip: the same newspaper will sometimes use "Jan H. Gardner" and other times"Jan Gardner". E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is what I do not understand. The same could be said of every election candidate, every mayor of every town everywhere in the world etc. But we don't allow it. The US seems to be get away with stuff that just isn't accepted for the rest of the world. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Quackslikeaduck (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Why?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This discussion and several recent and present discussions persuades me, as it has persuaded several editors commenting above, that too many editors are applying WP:NPOL without taking a close look at individual careers and available sources. Except with new pages on candidates actively running for office, I recommend tagging pages and leaving the tag in place for a year before taking politicians to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE TO CLOSER-User:Bangabandhu has canvassed several of the above votes. I've tagged them.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:CANVASS with greater care than you tag pages for deletion.

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:...On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:...Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

Everyone I "canvassed" made an earlier, substantial contribution to the page. I am removing your tags. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial edits, right? Like these? [1][2] Or how about this? [3] The only person you could possibly claim that made a substantial edit is Quackslikeaduck. This is canvassing and you know it. Do not try to remove the templates again, the closing admin needs to see them.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a total of 11 editors and I notified all of them. Actually, I missed a couple of them and I'm going to notify them now. There's nothing biased in my notice. "Substantial" has nothing to do with the extent of the edit, I didn't look at what they had changed. I'm going to remove your tags. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "County executive" is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL on every person who holds it — it's a level of office that can get a person into Wikipedia if she can be referenced well enough to mark her out as a special case over and above most other county executives, but not a level where every county executive who exists automatically gets in the door. But this is not sourced well enough to make Jan Gardner a special case — it's referenced about 50 per cent to primary sources, such as her own self-published campaign website and raw tables of election results that are not evidence of notability in and of themselves, and the half that is media coverage is the purely local media coverage that's simply and routinely expected to exist for local county councillors. And no, being the first woman to hold an otherwise non-notable office does not confer an exemption from having to clear the same inclusion standards as any other county councillor, either. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]