Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alderpersons of Carrboro, North Carolina

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. postdlf (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of alderpersons of Carrboro, North Carolina[edit]

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

This page was deleted through ProD in 2015, but has now been restored. The original ProD reason still seems to apply perfectly though: "A smallish city (less than 20,000 inhabitants) is for more than 10 years apparehntly the only city on Wikipedia with a list of alderpersons (not even mayors, alderpersons!). Complete lack of notability. The only two bluelinks are later mayors, and those have a separate list anyway." Fram (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Entirely unnotable. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No prejudice against listing the town councillors in an article about the town council itself, if it can be shown to clear WP:GNG, but we do not maintain standalone lists of municipal councillors — even New York City doesn't have one of these, and it's a global city where the city councillors are actually deemed to pass WP:NPOL (which Carrboro's are not). Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In the final analysis: unencyclopedic trivia. Carrite (talk) 11:02, 14 August 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.