Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. W. Dumas

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

W. W. Dumas[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)

Fails WP:NPOL. Not notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not satisfy WP:NPOL as a local politician. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mayor of a city-parish with population of over 400,000. 72.191.54.229 (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note The IP who voted above has been blocked as a probable sockpuppet of banned editor Billy Hathorn....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because the place they were mayor of eventually surpassed an arbitrary population cutoff — the notability test for mayors is the ability to reliably source that they've been the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2. The sources here are largely not helping, however: most of them are primary sources that do not support notability at all, such as government documents and raw tables of election results and genealogy records — and even the few that are reliable sources are mostly not about Dumas either, because except for his obituary in the local newspaper (which does not represent an instant free pass of GNG all by itself as the only valid source in play), the others are tangentially verifying stray facts about other people. Regardless of the size of the municipality he was mayor of, Billy Hathorn, this is still not how you source a mayor as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In my honest opinion, despite Bearcat's objections, U.S. mayors of places with 100,000 people or more ought to be inherently notable. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While I don't entirely agree with Mr. Guye, I do believe that there is a fair chance that most mayors of cities with populations 100,000 generally receive enough coverage to pass GNG. I'm leaning towards deleting in this case due to the incredibly poor sourcing and I think its probably best that the a new article be created from scratch if someone does the research and comes up with reliable sources to prove GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2019 (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.