Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Akron politicians

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 merge/redirect to List of people from Akron, Ohio. This seems to me the best interpretation of the consensus of the discussion, given that strong arguments are made by a number of editors for either outright deletion (i.e. this list should not exist, which will now eventually be the case) or merging, and at least one of those supporting keeping the list are okay with merging as a second option. It's unclear to me if there is actually information in this list that needs to be merged into List of people from Akron, Ohio, but if so that should happen soon and then List of Akron politicians should redirected to that page (because we need to retain the edit history of the page if anything is to be merged, not because its a useful redirect per say). If no merging has happened in a week or so I'll probably pop back and simply re-direct the page—the edit history would still be preserved if someone wanted to merge any pertinent info later. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Akron politicians

List of Akron politicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list is simply duplicate information as a sub-list of List of people from Akron, Ohio. JonRidinger (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I'd recommend you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It states and I'll quote "That other similar articles exist is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions and will typically be dismissed while still assuming good faith. " each issue needs to be debated on its own merits. Nefariousski (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I dont mean to use it as an example that way, i was just bringing lite to the fact that it is commonly used with good reasons. Also this data isnt on the List of people from Akron, Ohio article, thus isnt a duplicate as stated above.--Threeblur0 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So can you explain exactly why it's a good idea to split one type of "people from Akron" out of the "people from Akron" article to form a new article? What's the benefit? Nefariousski (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I stated at the article's talk page, the table at List of people from Akron, Ohio is sortable, so a column with a specific category could be included as a way to group them together (if someone really is looking for notable politicians from Akron) or it can simply be broken into subsections. No need for a separate list, especially in looking at the length of this list; hardly that long. Simply using other city article groups (particularly of cities that are older and larger) doesn't work. Additionally, the Akron list itself needs edited as it includes people from the Akron metro area and not just those from the city of Akron, so even less reason to spin off a separate list. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I stated, the List of people from Akron, Ohio would not properly fit under the section. Also as you just stated, the Akron list has problems, so a seperate list with no problems seems good, plus the list is unfinished as i found roughly six more politicans, also some are listed on the people from Akron list. Im not simply stating the fact, im giving good reason.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are already problems with this list as it is. No one on the list is notable for people outside of the Akron area, and many of them are not even notable for Akronites. Creating a second list with issues does not improve Wikipedia. --Beirne (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, if something or someone has an article, that has been present over a long length of time and no reason has been found to delete it, it is notable regaurdless of what you say/think. Second, United States House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, U.S. Ambassador, etc., are notable for people outside of the Akron area.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only editor not in favor of deletion is the creator of the list. If the additional names you have found are indeed notable, place them in in the List of people from Akron, Ohio in a subsection for politicians. Akron's list is hardly anything abnormally large. Also, the presence of a Wikipedia article is no guarantee of notability, especially if the article has few or no sources. In many cases, it may have just been overlooked because it has few articles that link to it. That seems to be another case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only editors in favor are two editors(one of which who started the deletion attempt) who have past "problems" with my edits, and another editor who may have changed his mind. I will place them on the politician page, where they belong, when i finish fully searching and typing the information. Nor are others', so it corresponds. Well since you have time to participate in this, could you mark which(if any) are non-notable? No it is a case of that it is common and makes senses to have.--Threeblur0 (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK. None of them are notable outside of Akron, and in Akron John Seiberling and maybe Tom Sawyer. Both of whom fit fine on the list of people from Akron. And four people voted to delete, not three, and I don't see anyone switching their vote. --Beirne (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And just because someone is a judge, congressman, etc. from Akron does not make them notable. Someone has to fill those positions and it just happens to be them. The number of notable ones will fit fine in the list of people from Akron. In fact, having a separate list can make it more difficult for someone to find the people, as they may not know to go to the politicians list, whereas the list of people from Akron is something to be expected. --Beirne (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK. It's ridiculous to say an Ambassador and etc. is not notable outside of Akron, and to take you seriously anymore. My mis-count came from only looking at the number of 'deletes' which two are from editors who havent commented much to see if there perspective changed. I will add a "save" tag to the page. Wow. As of now, all are deemed notable. In fact, having a separate list can make it more easy to for someone to find the people, as they are completely seperate from all others, whereas the politician list is something to be expected.--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right about the ambassador, but thousands of people have been ambassadors and most have sunk into obscurity, so they aren't notable just because they held the job. If you think the ambassador on the list is noteworthy then make a case for him rather than insulting me. --Beirne (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The poor organization of one list or article shouldn't be the reason for creating a separate list or article. It should only be because the new list would overwhelm the main list, just like including the main list in the original article is too much. List of people from Akron, Ohio is by no means an unusually large list and could easily be organized in such a way to have categories either with subheadings or a column in a sortable chart. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been trying to get that way of reasoning across. I apologize if my "state of disbelief over the seemingly false statements i read lead me to make a 'personal attack'", it's just that when statements like those come into play, it makes disscussions like this harder. Neither did i assume you changed your mind, i believed it was possible but never used words to confirm you did. Also, the list is longer than the Cleveland politician's article, which contains people who does/did similar roles as people on the Akron list. Since the Cleveland list seems to some how pass as notable/needed, maybe we should base it off that list.
  • Comment Again, the presence of the Cleveland politicians list is largely irrelevant unless it has survived its own deletion debate. Its existence does not mean it should exist or that this list should exist. No one but you has mentioned it as an example or standard and it is not a featured list like Cleveland was a featured article. Bear in mind, however, that List of people from Cleveland is a significantly longer list than Akron and has organizational and other problems of its own. In all honesty, I think the Cleveland politicians list could be integrated into the main list better and really isn't needed, but that is for a different debate. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of addtional politicians i found. List among them are, ambassadors, delegates, persons who played important roles is forming states (Monatana) etc. (people notable far past just the Akron area) Ellsworth Raymond Bathrick Sidney Edgerton Charles Landon Knight William Hanes Ayres Sandi Jackson Gilbert De La Matyr John Dean Walter B. Huber M. Herbert Hoover Dow W. Harter Henry Augustus Buchtel Mike Massie Thomas E. Martin Frances McGovern Ray C. Bliss Chuck Blasdel Robert Lucas (candidate) Leonard Firestone Kim Zurz William H. Upson Wilbur F. Sanders Francis Seiberling --Threeblur0 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really the debate isn't whether there are notable politicians from Akron, it's whether we need a separate list from List of people from Akron, Ohio. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because just like Cleveland's (a well done featured article) and other city articles, it helps bring a knowledge of a certain topic (Government and politics) together, oppose to a not so specific or even fitting list (List of people from Akron, Ohio) to the topic, being put.--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only the article Cleveland is currently classified as a featured article. Lists and articles attached to it should never be assumed to be "featured" or even "good" just because the parent article is featured. Every article is classified and evaluated on an individual basis, not as a group. The main Akron list can easily be organized to bring more specific information and divide it up, just like the Cleveland list can. And no, not all city article groups have separate main and sub lists; most have one main list if they have a separate list from the main article at all. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... Again My thoughts on this matter still stand as Delete. There is absolutely no reason to have a seperate article for politicians apart from the standard List of notable people from Akron. Firstly, Akron isn't a large enough city to warrant seperate articles on the basis of one single article being too massive to be readable. The "Well Cleveland has one" point is totally moot per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Comparing Clevelands featured article to the Politicians of Akron spinoff article is apples and oranges. There's absolutely no justifiable reason to not include the information in the People from Akron article aside from the personal preference of the editors. Nefariousski (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If all the people Threeblur0 found are added to the list, it won't fit in a merge. If it was that full already, it'd be split out to a side article here. Dream Focus 18:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but many of the people in the list of politicians aren't notable. Not every judge or state rep are worth putting in the list. That shrinks it a lot. Part of my concern with this list is that it will become a big unfiltered list of politicians. --Beirne (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles are pretty small and completely unorganized into sections. There's no reasonable "The article would be too big" argument to be made here. If you categorized all list type articles by length even the merged version containing all the politicians would be well into the bottom half of that list. Nefariousski (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (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.