Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Travale

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. Deor (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Travale

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

WP:BLP, edging dangerously into POV campaign brochure territory, of a rural mayor, with only a single primary source to support it. Municipality is large enough that he might pass WP:NPOL with a properly written, well-sourced and genuinely substantive article, so I'd be prepared to withdraw this if real reliable sourcing could be added, but even a big city mayor wouldn't be entitled to keep this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The local lacks the pop to convey notability, nothing else to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I just went in a cut out some of the promotional rubbish - completed unnecessary and completely un-sourced. I'm Australian and our mayors are responsible for about that many people and a good many of them are considered notable. In general, I'm not a believer in the "other stuff" argument and I'd like to see some actual coverage to get us closer to WP:GNG. I couldn't find much but a three-time candidate and now-mayor of a municipality like that should have something out there. It's not enough for me to suggest we keep it - I suppose I'd be okay with deletion without prejudice against recreation if the situation changes (which I suppose applies to all articles anyway). St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors can be notable enough for inclusion, absolutely — I said right in my original nomination that he'd probably qualify if the sourcing here were better, and I agree that I'd have no objection to recreation in the future if the sourcing improved. But mayors aren't granted an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, just for being mayors, if the sourcing isn't up to scratch. Based on the rest your comment, I realize that you understand that already — but just wanted to clarify in case my original comment wasn't explicit enough about that. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think we're on the same page. As I said, I'd be okay with deletion (I suppose my opinion here should be interpreted as weak delete if anything). It's more a suggestion that there should be something out there rather than that there is something out there. Because there isn't (or nothing that we could find) it should probably be deleted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage to support notability claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.229.17 (talk) 17:49, 29 August 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.