Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward M. Flynn


 * 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. ✗ plicit  10:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Edward M. Flynn

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The two best WP:GNG sources in the article are, and in my opinion these are both borderline and have issues. WP:BEFORE not turning up additional good sources. As a local politician, does not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nom, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and the only opponent link is red. That should tell you enough. Quantupediholic (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this. (I'm also willing to reconsider if somebody improves the article before this discussion concludes.) Boston is a large and important enough city that we would typically deem its city councillors to pass WP:NPOL #2 — out of all Flynn's colleagues on Boston City Council, there's only one who doesn't currently have an article, and even that one is a recently-elected councillor who just doesn't have one yet. However, that "inherent" notability does not mean that you're entitled to park an article on primary and junk sourcing instead of real reliable source coverage in the likes of the Boston Globe or WBZ, and it does not mean that you're entitled to write it like a campaign brochure instead of a proper encyclopedia article. In other words, he's a valid article topic in principle, but the content and sourcing shown in this version of an article about him is not cutting it. So if somebody can do better, then bring it on, but it can't stand looking like this. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 15:17, 4 May 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.