Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Everett Graham: Difference between revisions
Goldsztajn (talk | contribs) →Charles Everett Graham: comment |
Goldsztajn (talk | contribs) →Charles Everett Graham: clarify |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*'''Comment''' Might be hard to find any news articles from back then, so maybe the requirements should be less stricter on this one.[[User:Jaxarnolds|Jaxarnolds]] ([[User talk:Jaxarnolds|talk]]) 20:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' Might be hard to find any news articles from back then, so maybe the requirements should be less stricter on this one.[[User:Jaxarnolds|Jaxarnolds]] ([[User talk:Jaxarnolds|talk]]) 20:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
::Archives of newspaper articles this far back definitely do exist and are accessible to Wikipedians, so mayors from this era aren't exempted from having to pass [[WP:GNG]] just because it might take a little bit more work to find sources than it would for the current incumbent. Either enough sourcing is ''shown'' to exist, or the article goes away, period. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 18:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC) |
::Archives of newspaper articles this far back definitely do exist and are accessible to Wikipedians, so mayors from this era aren't exempted from having to pass [[WP:GNG]] just because it might take a little bit more work to find sources than it would for the current incumbent. Either enough sourcing is ''shown'' to exist, or the article goes away, period. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 18:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' Cut and paste nomination with precisely same text as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond Stanislas Aubry]]. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 00:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' Cut and paste nomination with precisely same text as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond Stanislas Aubry]], nominated for deletion 41 seconds later; it's not unreasonable to consider a significant lack of BEFORE here. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 00:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 00:48, 24 November 2021
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Charles Everett Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. To be fair, this was created at a time when our inclusion criteria for mayors was "inherently notable if the city has crossed the 50K bar in population", but that was deprecated several years ago -- in 2021, the notability bar for mayors requires a substantial and well-sourced article that establishes the significance of their mayoralty by addressing specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects they had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this basically just documents that he existed as mayor, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, which is exactly the kind of article about a mayor that caused us to deprecate the old "50K = free pass" standard. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the referencing from having to be considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Might be hard to find any news articles from back then, so maybe the requirements should be less stricter on this one.Jaxarnolds (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Archives of newspaper articles this far back definitely do exist and are accessible to Wikipedians, so mayors from this era aren't exempted from having to pass WP:GNG just because it might take a little bit more work to find sources than it would for the current incumbent. Either enough sourcing is shown to exist, or the article goes away, period. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Cut and paste nomination with precisely same text as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond Stanislas Aubry, nominated for deletion 41 seconds later; it's not unreasonable to consider a significant lack of BEFORE here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)