Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David S. Cassetti


 * 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. Guidelines are exactly that, a guideline to help determine whether a subject is notable. At the end of the day, the subject must be proven notable by having significant and in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. As indicated by the discussion, much of the coverage revolved around the election results, providing a stronger argument about the notability of the election (event) rather than the successful candidate. No individual is automatically notable. Mkdw  talk 21:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

David S. Cassetti

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN as a mayor of a small town. Toddst1 (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  talk  10:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Mayor of small town with no other claim to significance. AusLondonder (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete mayor of a place of 20,000 people that is not even the center of a larger region, but a city on the edge of the metro-areas of a few more imporant cities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ansonia CT is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free notability pass just for existing as mayors, but this features neither the sourcing nor the substance needed to get him over the bar that not-automatically-notable mayors have to clear. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per . Sakaimover (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am improving the article presently. Please review before any action is taken.
 * Update - The article now has a number of citations, including five from different news sources of record. This should be enough to prove notability. Markvs88 (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm still a strong delete - all of the references are local political coverage, and the New York Times quote is not significant coverage. SportingFlyer  talk  03:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes, the NYT coverage is just a quotation as stated. However, the Hartford Courant, New Haven Register, and the Connecticut Post (Bridgeport) are all reliable sources from major publishers (TRONC, Hearst Communications). Of course the coverage is gong to be on a city/regional level, the guy's a mayor of a small town. This should be more than enough to pass wp:GNG as the coverage is non-trivial. Markvs88 (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted per Deletion review/Log/2018 October 21 after a "delete" closure; see the DRV for more information.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment since this returned from DRV, I want to reaffirm my delete vote after reviewing the new revision for the reasons stated above. SportingFlyer  talk  12:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Affirm delete: per original nom. Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please explain how the article fails wp:gng? Markvs88 (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * SportingFlyer has done so several times. Toddst1 (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The article was upgraded considerably and Hartford Courant, New Haven Register, and the Connecticut Post (Bridgeport) are all reliable sources from major publishers (TRONC, Hearst Communications). Of course the coverage is gong to be on a city/regional level, the guy's a mayor of a small town. That said, this easily passes wp:GNG as the coverage is non-trivial. Just because there is no presumed notability does not mean presumed non-notability. Markvs88 (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I take a very broad view of notability for politicians, but this is below it.From the nature of the position, there would be expected nothing but the routine PR with which all politicians surround themselves,. The NYT article is the very opposite of substantial coverage: it is a very long article about railroad funding in Connecticut, in whichhe has two lines as the mayor of one of the many villages and towns affected.  DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please explain how the article fails notability? Markvs88 (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Can anyone answer me this Per WP:POLITICIAN... 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 of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". The footnote goes on to say " A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.". I can't see how this article possibly fails this metric. Markvs88 (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Every local town in the U.S. has routine local political reporting. All of his significant coverage is from these routine articles. The single line quote in the NY Times, for instance, isn't significant. SportingFlyer  talk  02:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Hartford Courant, New Haven Register, and the Connecticut Post are not "local" papers to Ansonia. Also, please cite the WP policy on local coverage not being worthy of inclusion? Because if that's true, then we can't use the NY Times to report on New York City, etc... Markvs88 (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - We hold politicians, for better or worse, to a more stringent standard than others for inclusion. Mayors of towns of less than 50,000 or so are generally treated at AfD very much like unelected politicians. This city has less than 20,000 people, so it's not really even an edge case in that regard. Carrite (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Question Is the size of the town a disqualifying factor, or merely a primary consideration which is difficult to overcome? My reading of WP:POLITICIAN is the latter. Would an extremely long tenure matter? What about significant coverage based on other public activities? Oldsanfelipe (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would be the latter - if the mayor received national attention or had other hooks to notability. SportingFlyer  talk  20:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So in a nutshell: no mayor of North Ogden, Utah would be notable, ever, even if reported in the Salt Lake Tribune. But now we can create an article for Brent Taylor because he was killed in Afghanistan . Oh, wait, that's the Salt Lake Tribune, we need to use USA Today instead. I find this logic baffling... a news source of record is a news source of record. Markvs88 (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Every incorporated community in the U.S. has a mayor, and almost if not every community has routine local political coverage about their mayors. The coverage for Cassetti is par for the course small town mayor coverage. I don't think Taylor would necessarily deserve an article, either. SportingFlyer  talk  23:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Markvs88, your hectoring of every delete vote is bordering on WP:POINTy. Sporting Flyer and several others have all said effectively the same thing.   Small town mayors typically are not notable for just being mayor and having routine local coverage.   Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2018 (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.