Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Wiser

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. One person argued to keep, but failed to supply any policy-based reasons. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Wiser[edit]

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

Mayors aren't unherently notable, local coverage - doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page needs a lot of work, but I think it justifies its notability and existence. Appears to be well sourced, but could use some additonial work. I believe it meets WP:NPOL. MountMichigan (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well-sourced? It has two sources, a radio station and a local newspaper. And they would contribute towards WP:GNG, but not achieve it. Which part of WP:NPOL exactly do you think he meets? Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Racine is certainly large enough that a mayor could get an article if he could be shown to have garnered substantial media coverage per WP:NPOL #2 — but at 78K, it's not large enough that a mayor would be automatically presumed notable just for existing. The sourcing here isn't cutting it for the purposes of WP:GNG, however: of the seven sources here, one (Ballotpedia) is a primary source that cannot aid notability at all, one is a newspaper article where he's the bylined author of the piece and not its subject, and two are glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him. Which leaves just three sources that are actually about him in any substantive way — but three sources aren't enough to pass NPOL #2, because every politician at the municipal level of government could always show three sources. At this level of government, the key to getting him past NPOL is to write and source something substantial, not just to be able to demonstrate that he exists — but "he exists" is about all this article, as written and sourced, is actually showing. Bearcat (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Racine has under 100,000 people. So we need lots of good sources on the subject to show notability, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 4 September 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.