Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge E. Meneses


 * 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. Mz7 (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Jorge E. Meneses

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as non-notable mayor (I'm not even sure he served a full term) Rusf10 (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 03:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 03:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 03:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 03:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete that an article on such an utterly non-notable politician has survived for a decade shows that Wikipedia needs better controls on article creation, and an easier process of article deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Utterly non-notable"??? Uh, he was an elected mayor of a city of 43,000 people. I would not call that "utterly non-notable" nor be in favor of an easier channel for ultra-deletionists to eliminate stuff they don't like. Carrite (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Strictly speaking, it's not relevant whether a mayor served a full term or not — what's relevant to making a mayor notable enough for an article, regardless of how long he did or didn't serve as mayor, is genuine substance about his mayoralty and quality reliable sourcing. But this article just states that he exists, gives a minimal profile of his prior background, and references just one piece of media coverage — but every single person who was ever mayor of anywhere would always qualify for an article if this was all that was required. To qualify, a mayor has to be shown as significantly more notable than most other mayors for some genuinely substantive reason, not just to be single-sourced as existing. To be fair, we were a lot looser about the notability of mayors a decade ago than we are now — there was actually once a time when the simple fact of being a mayor was commonly seen as enough, even in small villages of just a couple hundred people — but the standards have been significantly tightened up, and old articles that predate the tightening of the inclusion criteria for mayors are not grandfathered just because they met the standards of their creation time: if they can't be upgraded to meet the standards that pertain now, they go away. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete He has a credible claim of notability based on his elected role but would need more reliable and verifiable sourcing to meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Close call, having been elected mayor of a city of 43,000 people. A tad too small for an auto-keep as an elected official. Your mileage may vary. Carrite (talk) 18:52, 21 December 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.