Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Freda (2nd nomination)

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Freda

[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, does not appear to meet WP:GNG either. GPL93 (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First Selectman (Mayor) of North Haven, CT, population 24,093. While the subject received some passing mentions in the national press about a 2018 hostage situation the city, the subject's RS coverage is not more than what is expected from a city of North Haven's size (as we expect nationalized or internationalized coverage of a [relatively] small town mayor), --Enos733 (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you meant to write North Haven, Connecticut (pop approx. 25k) not New Haven, Connecticut (2d largest city in CT, pop. approx. 130k). 24.151.50.175 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - edited. --Enos733 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page fails WP:BIO. No references cited.Germcrow (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. North Haven CT is nowhere near large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its first selectmen under WP:NPOL just because they exist, but the article is not referenced even remotely close to well enough to get him over the "more notable than the norm for this level of significance" bar that he would actually have to clear. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page fails WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 00:58, 29 April 2019 (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.