Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxwell Billieon

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. Taking care of this one early due to snow falling.. Missvain (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Billieon

[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)

being a county commissioner isn't something that meets WP:NPOL and since the redirect continues to be "contested" i'm nominating for deletion. Fails WP:GNG and all notability criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Doesn’t meet WP:NPOL.Celestina007 (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County commissioner is not an "inherently" notable role under WP:NPOL, and single-sourcing the commissioner's existence to the county commission's own primary source meeting minutes is not how you make a county commissioner notable enough to be considered special — at the local level of government, the notability test is the ability to write a substantive article, referenced to a significant volume of reliable source coverage about him in media, that demonstrates his political importance, and is not just automatically passed by everybody who can show "staff" content on the self-published website of their own employer. I should note that at one time there was a longer article that made additional notability claims beyond county commissioner alone, namely his status as a published writer and cohost of a television reality show, but it was also based entirely on primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things rather than any evidence of coverage about him — so it wasn't making a stronger case for his notability on those grounds either, and was converted into a redirect to the show last year before being rewritten in this form within the past 24 hours. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not pass WP:NPOL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 17:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not keep articles based on one primary source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely not meet notability WP:NPOL. PenulisHantu (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2020 (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.