Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Deslatte

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. We need more than an assertion of "meets GNG" to justify keeping this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Deslatte

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

Small town mayor who fails WP:NPOL. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Merge to List of mayors of Pineville, Louisiana is also possible, which even though it is a red link, is already linked from Template:Pineville, Louisiana Mayors. Unscintillating (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence this passes GNG (contrary to the above claim). The references in this article are either articles from a small town newspaper about that small town's mayor (not enough for GNG) or lists of election results (not even relevant to GNG). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- One moment in your !vote there is "no evidence", and the next there is "not enough" evidence. Plus your !vote is WP:IGNORINGATD, so is not policy based. Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe you will find that "not enough for GNG" is a subset of "no evidence of passing GNG". You'll also find both that arguments to avoid is an essay, not a policy, and that the section you linked has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote, as I am not arguing against either a merger or redirection. No target for either has been identified which currently exists. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion". Local news coverage does not satisfy this according to WP:BASIC.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The evidence that he passes WP:GNG is not being demonstrated by this article as written. Of the 14 references here, eight are primary sources and one is a clarifying footnote rather than a source, leaving just five pieces of purely run of the mill local coverage in the local newspaper — a type and volume of sourcing that could be shown for absolutely every single person who was ever mayor of anywhere at all. It takes more than this to make a mayor of a place the size of Pineville notable enough for inclusion: more sources over a wider geographic range than just the local pennysaver. If Pineville had a population in the hundreds of thousands, this would be keepable but would still need to be flagged for refimprove — but at 13K it's no dice. Bearcat (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bearcat says it all; no need to repeat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2017 (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.