Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John M. Puente


 * 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. czar 03:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

John M. Puente

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

By our usual rules for candidates, he is not notable unless he won the election. according to the data in our article on the Sacramento City Council, he did not.  DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete does not appear otherwise notable from his political career. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 03:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 03:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 03:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per WP:NPOL, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being non-winning candidates in city council elections — and in fact, Sacramento is not in the narrow range of cities where even winning a city council seat would have been an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself. And there's no evidence of preexisting notability for other reasons here, either: the only other potential notability claim present here at all is "Vice Chair of the City of Sacramento's Utilities Rate Advisory Commission", which is not an article-clinching notability claim, and the article's sourcing is almost entirely primary sources that cannot support notability at all, except for a single reliable source which isn't even about him but just namechecks his existence in a brief employment announcement blurb about his successor in the local business journal, which wouldn't even have been enough to get the successor, its actual subject, a Wikipedia article in and of itself. That's not even close to good enough to deem Puente as passing WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2018 (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.