Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariel Pierre Calonne


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ariel Pierre Calonne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Autobiography of an appointed former city attorney in two small cities. This started out as a mostly-unreferenced resume. Having trimmed it down now (with a lot of pushback from the article's subject), there's little here to show how he's notable enough for WP:POLITICIAN. News coverage in WP:Reliable sources is limited to short local press articles announcing his appointment and resignation. The only thing he's been elected to so far is the city attorney's department of a notable organisation, and the only award he's won so far is from an organisation of unknown notability. Can't find anything else about him online to show how he meets WP:BIO. Wikishovel (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a promotional autobiography of a non-notable appointed public servant. I am sure that this man is competent in his job but, in my opinion, it was unwise of him to try to write an encyclopedia article about himself. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete City attorneys are very rarely notable for such. Nothing here is more than run of the mill. The recognitions mentioned are handed out far too often to be good for including an article in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.