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 speedy keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard H. Sylvester[edit]

Simply being a police chief of a major city does not make one worthy of inclusion into this compendium. Not to mention what if if every police chief in history had their own articles. The subject has not innovated any useful changes in policing, and is not historically significant in the field of law enforcement. While many police cheifs who are notable and included in wikipedia have written books and memoirs, the subject of this article has written none. Torkmann (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course. The deleter argues: "Simply being a police chief of a major city does not make one worthy of inclusion into this compendium". However, I would say any police chief who gets an obituary in the New York Times and one by the Associated Press does deserve an article. He is also listed in over a dozen books as the person who coined the term third degree (interrogation). He also was the first president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. I will leave it for the community to decide and stop adding material until it is resolved. While I have eyes on the article, can anyone figure out his middle name? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly doubt your sources concerning the third degree. The term was popularised in the nineteenth century, well before the subject of the article was around. If you have these sources, please show them. I hope they are reputable. Torkmann (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so your the guy that added "Thomas F. Byrnes" as the originator of the term but didn't add a reference. Is this your way of punishing me for removing the unsourced statement? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not punishment, this is a discussion. The discussion is on whether this Sylvester fellow is a notable enough comrade for inclusion here. Please take note of a subject's notability, or lack therefore, before starting new articles. Torkmann (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just add references, it is less work than a retaliatory AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well looks like I now have a wikistalker. See Suffrage_Hike AFD

- - Another one? This is the second person you've accused of "wikistalking" in the past few weeks. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:WAX is an extremely poor argument for anything, let alone deleting an article. There is no "must have written a book" policy for justifying notability. The coverage in multiple reliable and verifiable sources -- Wikipedia' gold standard for determining notability -- along with the innovations and accomplishments in his career at the national and international level all combine to clearly satisfy the Wikipedia standard of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ !vote by nominator stricken for procedural reasons.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I just read what WAX was, and in no way did I make that argument. Please stop mischaracterizing my statements to construct your "straw boy." I never said we shouldn't have this article because we don't have other articles on police chiefs. I said we shouldn't have this article because this guy did not accomplish worthy or notable enough things as police chief. Torkmann (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you allowed to nominate and vote? I think this a "bad faith" nomination and should be closed by an administrator. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously notable and verifiable; those sources alone in the article alone make it notable IMO. Pzrmd (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being a chief of police doesn't make one notable. What makes Richard H. Sylvester notable is the general notability guideline, which he passes. Therefore, he should have an article. I agree that much of the deletion nomination boils down to WP:WAX, and while the idea that his article should be deleted because he didn't write a book or a memoir is refreshingly novel, I suspect it's unlikely to gain much currency as a deletion criterion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-referenced and points to multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The nominator's "what if every X in history had their own article" and "how is he unique" arguments are unconvincing and have nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. cab (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG; the Times and AP obituaries by themselves make it likely that any person is notable, and the plethora of other sources confirm that Sylvester is. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG--Cube lurker (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Notability asserted and sourced even, certainly room for improvement but flies past GNG. -- Banjeboi 22:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom - As Torkmann didn't give any valid reasons for deletion in his nomination, I'm taking that to mean that there are no good reasons to delete. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is abundantly clear that the subject has significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, so they are notable. The fact that the subject hasn't written memoirs is irrelevant. Hut 8.5 19:31, 31 July 2009 (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.