Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Braxton

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 redirect‎ to Newbern, Alabama. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Braxton

[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)

Falls clearly within WP:SINGLEEVENT. Braxton is notable only for one event - the controversy over his mayoral election. He is not even notable for being mayor, as he has done nothing significant in his capacity as mayor (likely due to the controversy), and the position of mayor of this tiny town is not itself notable. The controversy is currently covered in the Newbern, Alabama, article, which is the appropriate place for that. There is no need to have this separate article whose subject is not notable. Ergo Sum 03:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 03:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 03:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider a page move (outside of AfD). This is a WP:BLP1E but the guidance on that gives three arms to consider as to whether the subject should have an article:
1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.
On point (1) the nom is correct. Reliable sources only cover the subject with respect to this event. It is a BLP1E. On (2) I am unconvinced. It appears likely that the town will be forced to hold elections and the subject could win such elections, and that this would be notable and covered widely. That is speculation at this stage and WP:TOOSOON applies, but I don't think it is likely they will return to a low profile. On (3) the event is, in fact, quite significant, and is already reasonably well documented, although largely in primay sources.
So I think coverage of this is due. But the nom. also correctly points out it is covered in the Newbern, Alabama page. It should be there, but the case is significant enough and notable enough that I think, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, there is a good case for a spinout page that discusses this in particular. People will be referring to this event for some time to come, and although it is again TOOSOON to judge the lasting impact, it is likely to be covered in secondary sources as a notable event in its own right. So I find that some article just on the event is due. The only remaining question is whether it is due as a BLP or due as an article on the event. If the latter, this article should be moved and covered as an article on the event and not as a BLP. This is in line with other BLP1Es, e.g. Lucia de Berk case. Note also arm 2 of BLP1E actually suggest merging with an article on the event, such an article being assumed. However that discussion need not be at AfD. An RM could be opened on the page instead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a word in response. I think it highly unlikely that one can say with any degree of confidence that the subject of the article is likely to become a high-profile figure. That would just be speculation and could be said about any other person or any other mayor of a tiny, rural town with less than 200 residents, which is not the standard BLP1E contemplates.

As for the significance of the event, that too seems minor and fleeting. Its coverage has been almost entirely by local sources that likely would not qualify as RS. It seems that only two large news outlets wrote articles about the controversy and there has been no sustained coverage. In any event, WP's coverage of the controversy should be in the article about the town. Ergo Sum 19:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly willing to accept we may be WP:TOOSOON to judge the impact. I already made that point, but I disagree that Its coverage has been almost entirely by local sources that likely would not qualify as RS. A quick google of the name reveals that in addition to the UK's Guardian source on the page, it is also covered in the Daily Mail (we all know what we think about that one - but note it is a right wing source), ABC News, CNN, CBS, the Wall Street Journal etc. All of these are news sources, and reporting is generally a primary source but they are all (other than the Daily Mail) reliable sources. Then we have sources like the Equal Justice Initiative [1] and many similar. Also additional information, e.g. [2] - Law & Crime. Again, we are close to the event, and that is always problematic in separating secondary sources from primary, but there is a lot of coverage of this and it is worldwide. It is simply not true that this is entirely local sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newbern, or re-scope to include the court case ala other one events. He as a person is not notable beyond the role. Star Mississippi 16:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newbern, where the entire controversy can be covered comfortably. He's not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2024 (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.