Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bing Maniquiz

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bing Maniquiz[edit]

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

Non-notable politician: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. All I can find are the election results and some trivial coverage. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, fails WP:NPOL AusLondonder (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous puff piece, fails WP:NPOL and general notability guide. Theroadislong (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KGirlTrucker87^{talk what I'm been doing} 11:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being mayor of a small provincial town is well below the threshold of notability for politicians, the article is also just a vanity article for her and her entire family, even including a bunch of family photos and a long list of utterly non-notable family members. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook! Thomas.W ^talk 12:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At a population of 50K according to its article, Botolan is just barely large enough that a properly written and well-sourced article about a mayor could be kept under WP:NPOL #3 — but it is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors just because they exist. But the only sources here are raw tables of election results, with not even one RS present to support so much as a comma of the article's body text — and that's just not enough. Note that I've also already stripped the extensive list of every living relative she has, as WP:BLPNAME explicitly prohibits us from violating people's personal privacy rights by naming their non-notable relatives without proper sourcing for the information. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is now no longer fully protected I have removed the totally unsourced "Facebook-material" about her family and her education, and all of the family photos, i.e. basically all of the material that now blocked user Workerwiki, the creator of the article, has been edit-warring over lately to keep in the article... Thomas.W ^talk 15:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pretty much a WP:LINKEDIN piece, No evidence of notability, –Davey2010^Talk 15:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 54,000 is not enough to make the mayor of a place default notable. I wish we would consistently apply these standards, there are some cities in the US of this size that have had the articles on their mayors kept at AfD. Hopefully if this results in delete, we can revist some articles on mayors of places in New Jersey and Louisiana that ought to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's a clear consensus and there's particularly nothing for solid independent notability as an article. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 6 June 2016 (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.