Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Connolly


 * 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 '''Keep. Non-admin closure.  TN ‑  X   - Man  14:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)'''

John R. Connolly

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable city councilor Oscarthecat (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fairly well-established consensus that politicians at this level aren't notable. Stifle (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For reference, WP:POLITICIAN suggests notability means "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.". --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes the general notability guideline on the strength of this reference: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/10/18/i_wanted_to_be_like_my_dad____i_wanted_to_make_a_difference/ -- Eastmain (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well known politician in a major urban area. Other officials from the region have pages as well. Alright, how about 3 articles on him in the Boston Globe in 10 months in office. That is significant. Thats just the Globe, the Boston Herald archives its articles so I could not acess them.Last and most important point,"Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." WP:POLITICIANThis meets Wiki's criterion based on the fact that he holds a citywide office in Boston.Cnhl33 (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC) — Cnhl33 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep as shown it generally turns out that the city councilors in one of the really major cities have sufficient material for notability. I'm not sure how far down the scale we should, go, but Boston is above the cutoff. DGG (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm rather surprised that nom selectively quoted the first sentence of that WP:POLITICIAN criterion and somehow missed the second sentence. I'd also like the nom to cite this "fairly well-established consensus" that directly contradicts black-letter notability guideline.  One would think that one of the top 50 metro areas by population in the world would qualify as being a "major metropolitan city."    RGTraynor  04:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the word "major" in the guideline refers to the political figure, not the metropolitan area.  Obviously a local politician with a large metropolitan constituency would be more likely to achieve notability, but even (say) the mayor of a small town could become notable through ongoing national press coverage. Kestenbaum (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: The full quote is: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city."  RGTraynor  15:53, 24 October 2008 (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.