Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Thomasberg

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. ✗plicit 00:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Thomasberg

[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)

PROD contested.

Non-notable mayor of a small city. Fails WP:NPOL; newspapers.com has very little even WP:LOCAL news coverage, and certainly nothing that really provides WP:SIGCOV, so also fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Bloomington MN appears to be large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor could potentially be kept, it is not large or important enough that its mayors would simply be presumed notable just because you write and primary source a short blurb that barely goes any further than "he was a mayor who existed". The notability test for mayors is not passed simply by writing a few stray tidbits of biographical trivia; it is passed by writing and reliably sourcing (meaning media coverage, not the city's own self-published website about itself) a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he accomplished, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 00:16, 28 September 2021 (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.