Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Arlman

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. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 20:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Arlman

[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)

Doesn't meet requirements of WP:POLITICIAN William Avery (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as he was a mayor multiple times and has many secondary sources about him. Kolma8 (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can improve the article. Mayors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they existed — and that goes especially for mayors of small municipalities in the 10-20K population range. The notability test for mayors is not just the ability to say that he was a mayor, it is the ability to write and reliably source some genuine substance about the significance of his mayoralty: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the town or city, and on and so forth. But there's no such content here at all: it just says he served as a mayor and then moves on without saying or sourcing anything that might establish how he could be seen as a notable mayor. And if there are "many secondary sources about him", none of them are actually in the article — so getting him over the bar is not just a question of saying that unspecified sources exist, it's a question of showing that enough sources exist to get him over WP:GNG: namely, by finding those sources and using them to expand the article. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearcat, I did/fixed all that! gidonb (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is unsourced. We would need lots of good sources to show that a mayor is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment JPL's verdict is part of him putting in one delete vote every minute. This is not helpful. No serious research can be done in such a short time span so his opinions are always about what is in the article. For example, he wanted to delete Germany's most decorated actress as "just not notable". The above opinion clearly conflicts with WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From my Delpher research, easily meets WP:NPOL "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" and the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NPOL. Maybe I'm wrong, but his roles seem to have been more of what we in the United States call a city manager, rather than a political leader. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mayors are not notable for an article just for being a mayor, and we have nothing else on him showing notability. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added 10 references from Algemeen Dagblad, Leeuwarder Courant, and Nieuwsblad van het Noorden. These are just a few of the many sources on the mayor. The references are tilted toward his earlier positions as the newspapers of these years have been archived and made available to the wide public. Not all newspapers are included in the Delpher database. I did not check but it is very well possible that the rest is available through the Krant van Toen database. Algemeen Dagblad is consistently the second-largest newspaper of the Netherlands, Leeuwarder Courant is distributed over the entire province of Friesland (the most populous province in the north) and Nieuwsblad van het Noorden served all readers of the other two northern provinces (since then renamed Dagblad van het Noorden). I appreciate if Bearian, SportingFlyer, and Bearcat can give this a bit more thought as the references clearly prove that the WP:GNG and WP:NPOL have been met. gidonb (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! De Krant van Toen archive has many more articles, focused on the Dutch mayor and football chairman. I have brought this to 12. There's no problem increasing the numbers, of course. Arlman has plenty of coverage. It just isn't clear why he is nominated in the first place. gidonb (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors aren't generally notable even though they receive coverage, since every mayor will be discussed in their local paper. I still don't think WP:NPOL is met. However his football chairmanship may get him over the WP:GNG line. SportingFlyer T·C 15:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SportingFlyer. Thank you for reviewing your opinion in light of the references and the WP:GNG! Per WP:NPOL Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AfD. Harlingen is certainly of regional prominence. I included only national and regional newspapers. No local press whatsoever. National newspapers with substantial coverage are De Telegraaf, Algemeen Dagblad, NRC Handelsblad, Trouw, and the Reformatorisch Dagblad. Arlman is said by one of the articles to secretly have enjoyed press coverage. By taking on additional positions in football and tourism, and by generating international tourism to a tiny community border community in his first mayoral position, he gained lots of national and regional interest. As recently as this month (12 years after his death) he is a central character in media coverage, speaking to the sustained interest in the Dutch politician and football director. gidonb (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:HEY level was clearly reached with 20 extensive quality references from the "federal", national, and regional press. References run up to the present, while the subject is already 12 years dead. gidonb (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference frequencies by type
Type	Frequency	Comment
National newspapers	11	Includes 3 references from dailies of other regions that carry the item as (inter)national news.
Regional newspapers	14	Dailies distributed within a region that also carry national and international news. Item within its region.
Regional magazines/radio/tv	3	In Dutch (1) and West Frisian (2)
Local press	0	Would still count toward notability. Not used given the abundance of even better references.
Miscellaneous websites	0	Typically used to reference specific data within articles. Do not count toward notability. Not used.
Total	28

gidonb (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference frequencies by main focus
Type	Frequency
Municipal politics and regional development	17
Football management	11
Total	28

gidonb (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've made over 50 edits to this AFD page and counting... you've made your point... consensus is already at keep right now... this is overkill. ~EdGl talk 04:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please take a look at the updated article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - received the usual type of coverage for a mayor, but does not pass WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, he didn't receive the usual type of coverage. He received lots of national coverage and passes the WP:GNG. And he wasn't merely a mayor either. As a mayor, he passes WP:NPOL #2. gidonb (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I understand the desire of those to expand the time given to this AfD to see more opinions. I would like to see that too. That said it is clear that those who ask to keep this article are rooted in policy and existing sources that are now 23 references in the article. Those who said delete seem not even to have read WP:NPOL. NPOL clearly states that local politicians will be kept if they meet the WP:GNG. Nobody here has even started explaining how Arlman, with so much national and regional coverage, does not meet the GNG. Important here is to understand that these regional newspapers are dailies that cover their regions, national, and international news. These are *not* local interest weeklies, twice or thrice weeklies with daily updating websites that also exist in the Netherlands.

There's another problem. Local politicians in WP:NPOL refers to people who engage in local politics, for example, run for their council and then eventually may find themselves being mayor of their city. The Dutch model is very different. Dutch mayors usually grow through municipal management until they become city managers (this is a different position — not the same as someone above suggested). From there they can run for mayor. In this case, with the support of the council, they are appointed by the national government to be political and executive leaders of municipalities. If successful, like Arlman, they also move between towns and cities to be mayors of increasingly important cities -- very different from the American model! Arlman grew until he was the mayor of a city with regional prominence, precisely the case that is kept by WP, because by then clearly meeting the GNG.

It's time for someone to make a bold decision based on the strength of the arguments. There's a huge gap between those who look for sources and at policies and those who put an opinion every minute at another AfD or whose opinions remain stationary given solid referencing that meets the GNG and WP:NPOL #2. gidonb (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPOL, per Bearcat's excellent arguments. 174.212.238.87 (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He suggested a few improvements. These were made a long while ago and on and beyond was done. It helps when we also look at the article. gidonb (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just cannot see how he doesn’t meet WP:NPOL. Gidonb has expanded the article with a lot of reliable sources. Passes criteria 2 of NPOL. Also per WP:POLOUTCOMES, mayors are generally kept, also subjects with non-local coverage. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 12:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the issues pointed out by Bearcat and Johnpacklambert don't exist anymore. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 19:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting to allow the added content to be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the delete arguments have absolutely been addressed by the additions to the page during AfD. In addition to GNG arguments that this person has received the sort of coverage that POLOUTCOMES suggests to look for in deletion discussions about mayors, the page now clearly looks like it's about one of NPOL's "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". I think this was a successful WP:HEY. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the time of the nomination the article was in a terrible state but Gidonb has done an excellent job here on not only greatly improving the article but creating a decent enough article which shows more than enough sources to press GNG. Govvy (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-sourced now, which hasn't been challenged by delete-!voters as of yet. ~EdGl talk 20:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes the WP:BASIC test so passes biographical notability if nothing else Spiderone 21:39, 14 January 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.