Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Sévigny


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Sévigny

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Mayors, per se, are not notable. Nothing here indicates otherwise. Student7 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep mayors of large centres (as Sherbrooke is) typically meet the threshold for inclusion, and there is a reference from the Sherbrooke Record that suggests he passes the General Notability Guidelines, as does this extensive google news listing, including this one from the CBC (my French is a little rusty, but I can get the gist article).--kelapstick (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions.  -- kelapstick (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC), also listed at WP:CWNB


 * Keep. Nominator should read point #2 of WP:POLITICIAN.  Sherbrooke is a significant city in eastern Quebec.  That having been said, the article should have more material about him.   PK  T (alk)  20:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sherbrooke is a major centre in Quebec, and the mayor of such a major centre is therefore notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For clarity's sake, while mayors in general aren't considered automatically notable just for being mayors, the precedent set in past AFDs has been that mayors of cities above 100K in population are considered notable enough. While I acknowledge, as this article's creator, that I didn't actually put very much work into this beyond the minimum necessary to establish that basic notability, he's only been in office for a week now — by virtue of his position, he will be getting considerable press coverage in the future, so there will be plenty of opportunity to expand the article. He certainly wouldn't have been notable enough during the election campaign, but now that he has been elected there's no reason not to keep, in my view. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Mkdw talk 08:13, 20 November 2009 (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.