Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Alessi (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. Missvain (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Alessi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Known primarily as councillor/mayor of municipality, doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN, elected three times as mayor of a city with a population over 100,000. That's enough to get over the notability high bar, methinks; the fact that he is not the current mayor is neither here nor there, as notability is not temporary. The article sucks, but that's not a reason for deletion. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - which criteria of WP:POLITICIAN does it meet? He was mayor of a local council, not a state or province and as a local politician requires depth of coverage that doesn't exist Flat Out let's discuss it 11:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the guideline does specify that the subject has to have substantial coverage in independent published sources. You know, like INTERNET TROLLS CONTINUE TO SWIPE AT WITTLESEA COUNCILLOR'S WIKIPEDIA PROFILE. (Melbourne Leader). Of course, I'm assuming good faith with this nomination, the timing of this deletion nomination could easily be coincidental. Carrite (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, pretty standard fail on the WP:POLITICIAN front. Also note: [1]. Frickeg (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, doesn't seem to exceed WP:POLITICIAN's general notability guidelines as there doesn't appear to be significant media/independent third party coverage. Carrite, Australian local municipalities are generally much weaker with less responsibility than American ones; they control little more than basic service provisions (rubbish, libraries, parks, local roads, etc) with major services (hospitals, policing, transport, education, major planning and planning overlay approval, etc) provided or controlled by state and federal governments. Queensland is an exception to this rule with Brisbane City Council covering much of the population, Melbourne on the other hand has over 30 councils of which Whittlesea is one. Also bear in mind that very few Australian mayors are popularly elected, with Whittlesea being no exception, so he wasn't elected as mayor, he was elected as a councillor and appointed mayor (it is now reasonably common to have a rotating mayor in Victoria). ColonialGrid (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. He's a local suburban councillor who's taken on an annually rotating mayoral role three times because he's been in office as a councillor a long time. The article's non-primary sources are basically nonexistent, and this is almost inevitable for people in positions of this nature (unless someone does some seriously thorough research in local rags, and the onus is on them to do it). I don't believe council mayors selected by the council on a rotating basis are notable unless it happens to be a particularly large individual city (Ballarat is probably one of the largest that still does now that Geelong has gone to direct election), and one with a daily newspaper to provide sufficient coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a true executive, but a legislator with some executive functions (possibly mainly honorary). legislators in cities of this size are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2015 (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.