Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlo DeMaria, Jr.

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) 00:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo DeMaria, Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable minor politician lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everett MA, pop 41K, is not large enough to guarantee its mayors an automatic NPOL pass just for being mayors — but this is not properly sourced well enough to get over the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local politicians, as its only reference is his own primary source profile on the city's own website. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This page is a work in progress, with new information constantly being added. Since the previous post was made, there have been multiple new websites added and other secondry sources. Please allow time for the article to actually develop.

Get him over WP:GNG and then we'll start talking. But the onus is on you to make sure the article is in a keepable state the moment you click save on it the first time, and is not entitled to any special consideration of needing "time to develop". You can "develop" it as a sandbox page in draftspace or userspace if needed — but if it's in mainspace today, then it has to already meet mainspace standards and requirements today and gets no special exemptions from policy. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This article is developing with a horrible, non discering use of sources. Facebook is not a reliable source, and should almost never be used at all. The city's own website probably can be used, but cannot add towards notability. Boston Globe is a reliable source, except its coverage of who is running for mayor in cities in its circulation area is routine, and not enough to show notability. Nothing shows DeMaria is more notable than any other small city mayor, and mayors of cities with less than 100,000 are not default notable, unless the city is a truly significant regional center. I am not sure that 100,000 is even a good minimum cut off, and this rule at best only applies to strong mayors. My city has over 100,000, lots of major manufacturing facilities and could be said to be a regional commerce center, attracting people from well beyond the borders for shopping, yet our last mayor's article was deleted, mainly because as a weak mayor he was just a city council member designated as the council president, so he had to pass the much higher hurdles for council member notability. The sources on DeMaria do not show he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article also used the subjects own website, which is not adding to notability, a blog post, not adding to notability, and articles about allegations brought against the subject by subordinates. Those do not really rise above the not news guidelines. Wikipedia is not meant to have articles on everyone who is mentioned in the news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Johnpacklambert nails it above. no inherent nobility. just another mayor of yet another small city. no more than routine coverage-- lacks significance. the added sources do not rise above the bar. the most significant coverage is salacious, and this is not "rogue's gallery" or a "annals of crime". Dloh cierekim 18:28, 1 May 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.