Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Armstrong (mayor)


 * 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.  Sandstein  21:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Fred Armstrong (mayor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a mayor in a small city (44K). The city is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but the article is not sourced well enough to get him past WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage: the only "source" here at all is the city's own self-published website. And the article has existed in this state since 2004, and it doesn't speak highly of his notability if in 13 years nobody's ever been arsed to actually add any sourcing or substance to it at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There's this bit of Watershed: Service in the Wake of Disaster which in my opinion—as 2–3 paragraphs, inclusive of other coverage in the book—reflects significant coverage, and a google search on the author does not bring up indications that a lack of independentness and reliability is there, so I conclude that this source constitutes one of the two sources required for the general notability guideline. After doing an enormous amount of searches on three different platforms—despite finding out that he handled finance in Indianapolis, was Democratic, and a load of other information—I have to conclude that the subject is not notable currently. However, there still may be more sources out there, so my !vote is thus weak delete.  J 947 ( c ) (m)   04:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete the only source in the article is the city's own website. This is no where near what we would need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2017 (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.