Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Mullarkey

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. Kurykh (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Mullarkey[edit]

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

Article about a local politician, composed almost entirely of trivial, unsourced detail, e.g. what colleagues attended his funeral. I have a feeling this article may have been created as a well-meaning tribute following his death. Guidelines state that, as mayor of a locally-important city, he might be deemed notable, but this is dependent on decent sources, which I can't find. No other post-WWII Derby mayor has been considered significant enough for an article, other than one who became an MP. Jellyman (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From my understanding he was only a ceremonial mayor, not an executive mayor with any greater powers than a regular councillor. Fails WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per our article on Mayor of Derby, it is not a directly-elected executive position but a ceremonial one that rotates yearly among the councillors — so even as large as the city is, there's still no automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL the way there would be for the elected sort of mayor. He could still be considered notable under NPOL criterion #2 if there were a lot more referenceability than this, but what's here isn't even close to enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2017 (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.