Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James M. Cahill


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

James M. Cahill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

He's been mayor for 28 years of New Brunswick, New Jersey (pop. 50K+), but hasn't generated anything more than routine local coverage. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Serving this long as a mayor of a city of this size is a potential claim of notability, but there is no evidence of reliable and verifiable coverage about him in the article, nor could I find any additional sourcing to support the claim in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete contrary to what some editors believe, being mayor of a city this size is basicially default not notable unless there is something particularly important going on. There is a clear lack of sources showing notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mayor of a city with a population of 56,000. No notable accomplishments. Fails WP:NPOL Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. routine coverage in local news for things like this: NB Performing Arts groundbreaking Surprising that a long term pol can manage to fly under the radar for this long. Wm335td (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. My cut-off point for mayors is 50,000 inhabitants. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The notability test for mayors is not an arbitrary population-of-the-city cutoff. A mayor's notability lives or dies on the quality and depth and range of his sourcing, not on how many people he happens to govern — 56K is certainly large enough that an article could be kept if it were substantive and well-sourced, but 56K is not an "inherent" notability freebie that would exempt a mayor's article from having to be substantive and well-sourced just because it's technically possible to verify that he exists. But the only sourcing shown here at all is the city's own self-published website about itself, not notability-supporting reliable source coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete An article should contain sufficient sourcing to write an article that is more than "they exist," as Bearcat describes. In this case, the existing sourcing is not nearly sufficient to keep the article. --Enos733 (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2019 (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.