Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond Stanislas Aubry


 * 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America1000 11:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Edmond Stanislas Aubry

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

Biography of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. To be fair, this was created at a time when our inclusion criteria for mayors was "inherently notable if the city has crossed the 50K bar in population", but that was deprecated several years ago -- in 2021, the notability bar for mayors requires a substantial and well-sourced article that establishes the significance of their mayoralty by addressing specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects they had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this basically just documents that he existed as mayor, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, which is exactly the kind of article about a mayor that caused us to deprecate the old "50K = free pass" standard. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the referencing from having to be considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Genuine, good faith question: where is there consensus that the "notability bar for mayors requires a substantial and well-sourced article (my emphasis) that establishes the significance of their mayoralty" rather than the existence of sources? My understanding of consensus regarding notability discussions at AfD is that the current state of an article is not the criterion, but rather by assessment of sourcing (both present in the article and potentially to be added).  Has consensus on this changed? Is BEFORE deprecated now in the case of mayors? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're harping on a distinction without a difference. "The ability to write a substantial and well-sourced article that establishes the significance of their mayoralty" is the only context in which any mayor can ever have enough sources to clear NPOL #2, because literally by definition a mayor's sources have to be about him doing things. So if a mayor actually has enough sources to clear the notability bar at all, then by definition the article is going to have substance to it because of the context of what the sources are covering him for — and if all you can do is minimally verify that the mayor existed without providing any real content about his political career to make the article substantive, then by definition the mayor does not have enough sourcing to clear the bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The text of the nomination provides no evidence of WP:BEFORE (specifically actions C and D), it is only an assessment of the present state of the article; that's distinction with a difference. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The lack of BEFORE is further reinforced given this is precisely the same nomination text as Articles for deletion/Charles Everett Graham. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One is perfectly capable of finding a closely related cluster of articles that all suffer from similar quality issues, doing the before work on all of them in one shot since one would have to look in the same places anyway, and then doing the nominations all in one shot after failing to find any sources that would have made a meaningful difference. In other words, it is entirely possible to go "refcheck refcheck refcheck refcheck, nom nom nom nom" instead of "refcheck nom, refcheck nom, refcheck nom, refcheck nom". So no, you're not getting a "nominator did not do due diligence" argument to stick to me, of all people. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no attempt to "stick" anything anywhere; don't take this personally and AGF. To reiterate, I'm only noting that the nomination shows no evidence of carrying out tasks outlined in BEFORE, such as consideration of alternatives to deletion or evidence carried out looking for further sourcing. The nomination is based purely on the status of the article, which is not a determinant of notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The nomination was based on searching for better sources and failing to find any. The nomination process does not require the nominator to exhaustively document every individual step they took in a Proustian level of detail. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep WP:NPOL is certainly not met. However, the sourcing in the article and online, plus sources I can't access online (Histoire anecdotique de hull is from a historical society, and there are surely contemporaneous newspaper articles) is probably enough.  If there were a good merge target I might say merge, but I don't see one. User:力 (powera,  π ,  ν ) 22:20, 3 December 2021 (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.