Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Paul

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 delete. Daniel (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Paul

[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 WP:NPOL. Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Current mayor of Lakewood, Colorado, population 155k. This is a position where the officeholder could be notable, but there must be substantial coverage of the subject to show more than "they exist." --Enos733 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lakewood CO is certainly large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor could be kept, but mayors don't get an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors. The notability test for a mayor is not passed just by writing that he exists and citing a tiny smattering of local coverage to verify that existence — it requires you to write a substantive article about the significance of his mayoralty, by delving into and sourcing specific things he did in the mayor's chair, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A mayor of a city is an important position to have a Wikipedia page. He has an in-depth article here and I found many many mentions of him in Google news, which should mean something for his overall popularity. Jaxarnolds (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors are not automatically given Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and counting raw Google hits isn't a helpful gauge of notability — just because a source has his name in it doesn't automatically make it a notability-building source if it isn't about him in any non-trivial way. It takes a lot more than just one article about him in the local newspaper to get a mayor over the bar, especially if all the rest of the sourcing in the article is non-notability-supporting primary source junk. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt mean to say they are automatically acceptable, but based on the amount of news, he seems notable enough to keep. Jaxarnolds (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're kind of missing the point. It's not enough to just say "there are Google News hits, so keep" — you still have to show some specific examples of what you consider to be notability-building coverage so that we can evaluate whether it's really as good as you claim. The bar for inclusion of mayors is considerably higher than just "some local news coverage in his own city's local media exists", so just saying that media hits exist isn't enough: the hits have to evince a reason why he should be seen as significantly more special than most other mayors, not just verify that he exists, before they make a mayor notable for being a mayor. Bearcat (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2021 (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.