Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Ruiz II


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Ruiz II

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Chiefs of staff do not count as a political office for purposes of NPOL, and it doesn't seem like there is sufficient coverage to meet the standards of WP:BASIC unfortunately. Deprod by, not sure which sources they were referring to, perhaps the AP? Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla  Ohhhhhh, no! 19:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians,  and Arizona. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: In cases where there is some substantial coverage I usually object with PRODs in case there's a chance they can be kept. In this case, there's this local 12news.com article and this ktar.com article which both go WP:INDEPTH. There are some less-significant mentions in this NYT article, this kold.com article, and this azcentral.com article. I'd lean towards delete but it's a close call. Clear  friend  a  💬  16:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Clearfrienda that the sources provided are not SIGCOV. The 12News source is good, but the rest are routine announcements and/or based on press releases. Toadspike   [Talk]  07:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete The NYT is a name-check, the KTAR is routine "hey, look at this guy who got elected" stuff. The c12 is more in depth but is rather fluffy and doesn't have the air of a researched piece - it sounds like a restating of an interview. Lamona (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2024 (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.