Jake Metcalfe: The only reference in the article does not pertain to the subject at all.  A WP:BEFORE check only came up with WP:ROUTINE passing mentions from his various roles, with nothing that would pass for WP:SIGCOV .  Let'srun ( talk ) 13:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Law ,  and Alaska .  Let'srun ( talk ) 13:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG.  Even if kept, is hugely problematic with regards to sourcing from a possible BLP point of view.  SportingFlyer T · C 20:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This comment sums up the decline of Wikipedia in a nutshell.   When this article was created in 2006, there were still people around who understood that the purpose of a biography is to credibly tell the story of someone's life.   Nowadays, between running off many editors with common sense and gaslighting newbies who don't know any better, we've twisted things to where the intent of a biography is to mindlessly repeat whatever detritus one finds lying around through a Google search and nothing more.   You should really take a good look at some of the articles created in recent years with that mindset, consisting of a random series of sentences connected solely by the presence of citations at the end.   Many of them are an absolute embarrassment to read and serve little purpose other than to enforce the real-world perception of Wikipedia as a haven for the autistic.   Here's the real BLP issue.   As the opening paragraph states, "On July 30, 2007, Metcalfe announced his intention to run for Alaska's At-large congressional district in 2008".   On August 7, 2007, the article received its only substantial improvement from a user whose only contributions to the project were those edits.   Meanwhile, nearly 16 years has passed between those edits and today and people are still grasping for other things to blame?   Unfknbelieveable!  RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1) It's not a good look to falsely imply that the article only contains one source.   I see several sources but only one properly formatted citation.  I turned them into citations so that it is easier to see what is there.  I didn't make all of them complete but I think it is now possible to understand.  Lamona ( talk ) 02:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 2) It's not a good look to say or do nothing while someone is a candidate for office, then come back well after the fact claiming they're non-notable for the same reasons that applied back when the article served as free publicity for their campaign, yet that has occurred over and over again across the encyclopedia for years.  3) It's not a good look when philosophies which worked for years on this site are changed on a whim to satisfy those pushing a starkly black-and-white view of notability.   For a long time, NPOL generally referred to statewide political leaders.   He qualifies in that regard as a state chair of a major political party, an office he held at the time the article was created.   There's also Category:State political party chairs of Alaska and we tell people that categories reflect defining characteristics of notability.   In the context of Alaska, the Anchorage School Board is a major office.  Anchorage School District enrollment has comprised about five to eight percent of Alaska's entire population in recent decades.   School board members in Anchorage serve areawide, which means his constituency consisted of eight times more people than a state senator.   Are you telling me that's irrelevant because of whatever one-size-fits-all view Wikipedians have about particular titles?   Without giving serious regard to what makes a biography a biography (as someone mentioned to you in another AFD, WP:ROUTINE has nothing to do with biographies), you turn this project into a directory of holders of titles.  WP:NOTDIR is a policy, whereas the pages you refer to above are only guidelines.   Last I checked, we're supposed to give more weight to something if it's a policy.  RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Metcalfe is mentioned in passing in the context of routine events, which is the point I was aiming to make, although I admit I could've made it better.  The last time I saw, wikipedia is not a textbook, and if you want NPOL to include school board members, make a proposal in the appropriate channels.  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete nothing we can use for notability, as explained above.  Old article, different times when it was created.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I dug up some articles and left links at Talk:Jake Metcalfe .  I had to quit before I could read them all.  I think any notability will come from his being a long-time political fixture in Juneau and a powerful labor leader, not a failed election campaign.  A major player at the capitol from the way it looked to me.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 10:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for digging up the articles, A. B. . I looked at all of the ones that weren't paywalled, and in each case it was a brief mention of Metcalfe in an article about someone else. There is nothing that I see that is better than the sources in the article, and those don't support GNG in my opinion. All of what we have about him is routine reporting on his time in office. I'm going with delete but will check back in case someone finds a gem. Lamona ( talk ) 23:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I left a notification message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:51, 2 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete