Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Packett

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. T. Canens (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Packett[edit]

[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:GNG and WP:NPOL. Small city (pop: 24,000) "mayor", which in this case is simply a ranking councillor. GPL93 (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if he were a normal mayor of a city of 25,000 that would not make him default notable. However since in Salem the mayor is not the person who runs the city, but the "head of city", who is the president of the city council with some extra honorific functions, he is clearly not notable. The city I used to live in, Sterling Heights, Michigan has over 130,000 people. However we have deleted articles on the mayor there because of the fact the position is honorific. True, the mayor of my current city has an article, Mike Duggan, but Detroit, Michigan is a city of about 700,000 people, the center of a metro-area of at least 3 million maybe more, a key point in international manufacturing, with a strong mayor who is by any account one of the most significant politicians in Michigan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 19:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability test for mayors attaches to directly elected executive mayors, not to the kind who is simply selected by his or her own colleagues on the council to chair the meetings but has no executive power of his own — and further, mayors also have to serve in significantly larger cities than just 24K before an inadequate article gets handed a presumption of notability pending significant improvement. He could still potentially clear NPOL #2 if the article were a lot better sourced and a lot more substantive than this, but rotational mayors in cities this size do not get an inclusion freebie just for existing, and the fact that this is still the best anybody has been arsed to do in a full decade after his mayoral term does not speak highly of his potential to get Heymanned over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 22 May 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.