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. Missvain (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Ficano (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)

Politician of only local note, no significant articles about the subject to build an article. Prod removed because of longevity in local politics and local coverage. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Honestly, I am a bit baffled by this nomination. This man was chief executive for a dozen years (and sheriff for 20 more) of a major county which has more people (about 1.8 million) than any of a dozen U.S. states. Over the last 30-plus years, there must be hundreds of articles about him in the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press. Kestenbaum (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as he is a major local political figure who has received significant press coverage.. —Noah 15:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kestenbaum's points. For example, HighBeam Research yields more than 600 news hits about him. [1] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How many of them fit into the local exemption from WP:NPOL as claimed by User:Noah Salzman, because I'm not immediately seeing them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To the best of my knowledge the Detroit Free Press is a respected news source and considered reliable. There seems to be wealth of coverage in that publication alone and more by the NY Times and Washington Post. Although, maybe I am missing your point? —Noah 22:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's local coverage is the point. The exception you link to discusses feature-length pieces about the subject, for example. In that "wealth of coverage," is that what you're getting? I'm not seeing anything obvious coming up. We expect anyone running for even a regional office to get a "wealth of coverage," but we put some reasonable limitations in place so we're not stuck with a bunch of articles about local politicians who get in the local news twice a week. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You correct to worry that we could end up with thousands of articles on non-notable local politicians if we only went by WP:NPOL's "significant press coverage". However, when we add to that "major lcoal politician" then it shrinks the pool of candidates considerably. I believe that Ficano is a major local politician. And, to your other point, I did not find a long-form feature-length piece on Ficano but I do not believe we need that to establish his notability; there is sufficient coverage outside of that. —Noah 00:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The guideline you link to recommends exactly that, a feature piece. If we're looking to carve an exemption for him, I think we need a better argument is all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahhh... but in a footnote! We can ignore it! <wink> I think our two positions are fairly set. Let's see how the consensus forms. Cheers, —Noah 01:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And why should we ignore it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Same rationale as Kestenbaum and Noah. And there is abundant coverage him in major metropolitan newspapers, not like coverage is limited to local, small-town newspapers. Cbl62 (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Even if the coverage of the local politician is local, that is permitted under the "local politicians must have extensive news coverage" rule. The population is not a factor regarding "local politicians": it's not in the rules. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Population may not be in the rules, but the lack of large population in a political jurisdiction is often cited in favor of deleting a politician. Kestenbaum (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ficano is not a "politician of local note" he was one of the top 4 political figures in Metro-Detroit at any given time, a metro area with several million people. He was not quite as big a figure as Kilpatrick or Patterson, but he can not be rejected as a major figure either. The Wayne County Executive is a major figure with significant power and influence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on the scope and breadth of coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2015 (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.