Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Little (politician)

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. Consensus here is that the sourcing provided does not establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Little (politician)[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)

mayor of a mslla region in a city, does not meet NPOLITICIAN, and not otherwise notable DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a mayor at this level is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with coverage such as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7]. Probably more too - these all took me two minutes to find total, undoubtedly someone with more time could find more. Smartyllama (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just for existing as mayors, and neither are unsuccessful MP candidates in federal elections — but the article features neither the depth and range of reliable sourcing nor the depth of substantive content about his mayoralty that would be needed to get him over WP:NPOL #2. GNG is not just "count up the footnotes and keep anything that meets or exceeds two", so mayors are not automatically kept just because they can show a small handful of coverage in their local media — every mayor of everywhere can always show a small handful of coverage in their local media, so if that were how it worked then we would always have to keep an article about every single mayor who ever mayored. The key to making a mayor notable enough is to show that he's more notable than the norm for mayors, because he has more, wider and/or deeper coverage than just what all mayors routinely always get: nationalizing coverage, actual published books, and on and so forth. Just showing four or five articles from the community hyperlocals is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability. We can find multiple sources on virtually every mayor, they are not all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable Mayor. Perhaps if he had some regional controversy that garnered coverage. As it is he is just one mayor out of many. Wm335td (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable mayor. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:36, 9 March 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.