Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roderick Sawyer

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) czar ♔ 03:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick Sawyer

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

If the only claim to fame for Roderick T. Sawyer is that he's an alderman of the 6th ward of Chicago, that surely doesn't confer notability! Slashme (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is being a two-term alderman in Chicago enough? I don't know, but if it's not I think it would be reasonable to merge a couple sentences on this individual into his father's article. As the subject seems to be getting substantial coverage in reliable independent sources as here for example, I think I would leave it independent. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a few very large cities whose city council is of enough significance that the individual members of it are notable. The best US examples are NYC and Chicago. We have consistently kept such articles. There is always enogugh material to be added, even if it has not yet been added in this case. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem here isn't that he's an alderman in Chicago — city councillors in fact are deemed to pass WP:POLITICIAN in certain metropolitan "world cities" in the millions population range, such as New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto or London — but that the article's only cited reference is a primary source (his "meet your alderman" biography on his own website), making this effectively an unsourced WP:BLP. Since he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article in principle, I will gladly rescind this comment if the article sees sourcing improvement by closure, but it cannot stay on Wikipedia in this form. Delete if sources don't start showing up, but no prejudice against recreation if somebody wants to start a new, properly sourced version at a later date. Keep due to Milowent's sourcing improvements, though the article does still need more sources and should remain tagged for {{refimprove}}. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Bearcat's concern was legitimate. I added two sources, I think it can be kept.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: This many relists is unusual, I know, but I would like to see a second view following Milowent's addition of sources. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 24 May 2014 (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.