Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamal Osman (politician)

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Osman (politician)

[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)

Fails notability. Being elected to a non-major office and just existing does not warrant notability

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’d have said delete but for the fact that we seem to have articles in many other Minneapolis Council(wo)men so not sure this subject us any less notable than the others. Mccapra (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minneapolis is a big city and Wikipedia has thousands of biographies of city council members from big cities. Category:Minneapolis City Council members contains 41 biographies. References to sufficient coverage in reliable sources are in the article. This article goes into great detail about the beginning of his term. Cullen328 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that he holds a "non-major office" does mean he's not automatically notable under WP:NPOL, but, as NPOL notes, "elected local official[s]...can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". The press coverage cited in the article (e.g. in the Star Tribune, which has several in-depth articles about Osman) is more than enough to meet the GNG, in my view, and I feel that's sufficient to establish notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ We both agree that this post in not notable on NPOL. I am not convinced on GNG. Please share the sources that you are basing your GNG argument on. This startribune article is about the Election result in the area and includes some statement from the subject. WP:NOTNEWS type coverage in my opinion. If he has been involved in a major political activism, or did something worth publishing, then those sources should be used. @Cullen328 A council man winning with 2000 votes can hardly be called big. If this article is kept we will have to keep a few lakh councilman BIOs from around the world. There are close to 20,000 sitting councilmans in India alone, ex councilman will easily cross a few lakhs if not millions. Venkat TL (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Venkat TL, it is all about the quality of the coverage in reliable sources. I linked above to a lengthy article that discusses this person in detail and there are others. As for whether we end up with "lakhs" of new articles, who cares? (The word lakh is not used in the United States, by the way). There is no limit to the number of possible Wikipedia articles and we do not need to ration them out. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328, I am sorry, I failed to notice the external link in your comment. Now that I have checked it out. Yes, that article is a good detailed coverage. But it is still a single source. Is that enough for GNG? The other sources in the article are routine election coverage of candidates. (Yes, I linked the word for you). I was under the wrong impression that you were claiming notability only due to his coucil seat, so I thought it would be excessive. Now that I have seen that star tribune source, I understood your reasons to vote Keep. Venkat TL (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page shouldn't be deleted. It is clearly of a high-profile local populant in Minneapolis. Here are more reliable, independent sources that should be added to improve the page. It passes WP:GNG. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Multi7001 (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no argument being presented that every councilor deserves an article, nor any floodgates issue; the GNG allows us recognise that some councilors are going to be notable and have a high degree of visibility (while most do not). This Star Tribune editorial endorsement is precisely one of those points of higher recognition. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2022 (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.