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 as although this could be relisted thrice for better attention, that may simply be taking space, time and efforts where the consensus seems currently clear. This is also considering I was thinking of voting myself but was never certain how and what to comment, still closing as Keep though because of the listed votes (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Belmar[edit]

Jon Belmar (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)

Minimally sourced WP:BLP, with definite public relations/advertorial overtones, of a person notable primarily as a county police chief. While the county in question is large enough, and near enough to a major metropolitan media market, that he might be reliably sourceable enough to satisfy WP:GNG, local chief of police is not a position that entitles a person to an inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist — and a single source doesn't get him over the bar. Delete, unless somebody can source him a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is St Louis County, population over one million. the area surrounding the city. The police chief of that city would be notable, and so is he. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were sourced and written properly, I'd have left this alone. But "chief of an exuburban police force near a major metropolitan city" is not, in and of itself, a claim of notability that entitles a person to a presumption of notability on an article that's written and sourced like this — it would be enough get a person into Wikipedia if the sourcing and substance were already there, but it's not enough to make him an automatic keep regardless of article quality. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Heads of police departments of major cities appears to meet notability requirements. There's even a category for St. Louis Police Department Chiefs, so Belmar's article is far from an anomaly. (I'm not arguing WP:WAX; I'm pointing out that that category, and this one, in which it is nested, suggests a consensus that the occupant of this position is notable by virtue of the position.) Needs cleanup, better referencing and additional categorization, but that's not an issue for AFD. TJRC (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except he's not the chief of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department — he's the chief of the separate, suburban St. Louis County Police Department. Which means that he's got a lot less claim to an automatic presumption of notability than his big-city neighbours do — he could be kept if the article were sourced a lot better than this, but he doesn't get an automatic "because he exists" freebie just because some the chiefs of the next police department over from his have articles (most of which are actually sourced so badly that in reality they're probably deletion candidates too.) Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Chief of a police department with over 800 officers policing a population of over 1 million. That meets my notability standards per common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense does not trump the lack of sufficient reliable sourcing to meet WP:GNG, especially in a WP:BLP. And at any rate, my definition of common sense (at least as it pertains to Wikipedia) includes being conscious of the fact that a Wikipedia article can be tilted far too strongly in a public relations/advertorial direction (as this is) and/or far too strongly in an attack-page direction (as this could very easily be rewritten to become, if it isn't generating enough "good editor" traffic to control for that), and that RS coverage is our only mechanism for keeping an article on its moorings. And my definition of common sense includes the fact that a deleted article can be recreated again in the future if somebody can do a better job than the deleted version. So my common sense doesn't permit anybody to keep an article that's written and sourced like this, because deleting this now is not making it impossible for somebody to do better in the future if better can be done. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2016 (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.