Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Guardado

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Guardado[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

NN local city councilman, fails the GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. A handful of sources found, but all either namedrops or routine local coverage that does not provide significant coverage to the subject. Notability tagged for over a decade. Deprodded with the rationale "Local and "routine" coverage can be used; WP:AUD only applies to organizations," although AUD was not an element of the prod. Ravenswing 00:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 00:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 00:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--Mpen320 (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to low of a political position for WP:POLITICIAN and doesn't meet WP:GNG from what I can tell anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 10:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maywood CA is nowhere close to large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its municipal councillors: at this level of significance, the bar she would have to clear to qualify for a Wikipedia article is not just the ability to verify that she exists, but the ability to demonstrate and source that she has a strong claim to being much more nationally significant than the norm for smalltown municipal councillors. But five of the six sources here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, which is not how you get city councillor over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: What's the policy that says national significance is required for a WP:BIO? ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say national significance is always a base requirement for all biographies of humans — however, because city councillors are not accepted as all being "inherently" notable enough for inclusion, the test that a city councillor has to pass to get in the door is that he or she is significantly more notable than the norm for their role, by virtue of having attained some kind of prominence beyond just their own city alone. Bearcat (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a place with under 2 square miles, that has less than 30,000 inhabitants, and is in a county with over 9 million people where the largest city has well over 1 million inhabitants. People who are on city councils in a place this small are never notable unless it is for something totally unrelated to their position. To take any other positions would lead to doubling our currently almost uncontroable 1 million biographies of living people to 2 million with 1 million biogrphies of hyper local politicians alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2020 (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.