Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Anderson (politician)


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Jeff Anderson (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

City councilor obviously fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd •  SPEAK  02:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete fails notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Easily fails notability guidelines for WP:BLP. Definitely not noteworthy. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Mottezen (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Duluth is not a global city for the purposes of securing the "inherent" notability of its city councillors, so his only legitimate basis for inclusion in Wikipedia would be to show that has a significantly higher national profile, and a significant volume of nationalized sourcing, to demonstrate that he's much more significant than most other city councillors. But having stood as a candidate in a national election that he didn't win doesn't accomplish that, and the depth of sourcing just isn't there to deem him a special case. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 7 March 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.