Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Chagnon

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. Secret ^account 04:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Chagnon[edit]

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

A one-term mayor of Azusa, California (pop. about 45K) who doesn't seem to have done much as far as the article is concerned. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems abandoned. Last real edit was late last year. -A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 02:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article and so does not pass WP:NPOL in spite of holding a sub national office. BritainD (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. Minimal references in the article; no coverage found in a search. --MelanieN (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A city with a population of 45K does not automatically confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL. She could potentially qualify to keep a substantive and properly sourced article — but if all you can do for content is four sentences that offer nothing of substance beyond "she was elected mayor in 2005 but then lost reelection in 2007", and all you can do for sourcing is smartvoter.org (a user-generated content site), then she hasn't cleared the bar. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete since there is a source here and a mention here, some local coverage here, and more local coverage here, but generally agree with above, doesn't seem to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2014 (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.