Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Sullivan (mayor)


 * 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. Icewedge (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael J. Sullivan (mayor)

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

not notable and easily confused with others by the same name Gang14 (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We have the modifier to avoid mix-ups. What do you think makes this person not notable? Just claiming he is, isn't a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A mayor of a large (or at least well-known) city who has at least one notable achievement and has received media coverage...how exactly is he not notable? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - an adequate potential for reliable, independent sources. Going to Google and Google News, there were certainly adequate sources upon which the article could draw. Also, the subject meets the standard set at WP:POLITICIAN.  Jd 027  talk 21:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm confused as to why "easily confused with other by the same name" is included. Does that mean that if the man's name was "Clancy Knickerbocker," he would somehow be more suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? No. Easy confusion by others with the same name is not a criterion for deletion, has never been, and will never be. A very poor AfD entry, indeed.  Jd 027  talk 21:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep he is a mayor and this will be updated in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlumdogAramis (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Mayor of a significant city easily meets WP:POLITICIAN. Current stub needs work but plenty of sources show up in Google. Rklear (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN and well-covered.7triton7 (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Weak Delete The original deletion request was made by someone who was blanket proposing deletion of minor mayors of minor cities. At the time, I opposed the deletion, but after further research, it appears that all the notable things Michael J Sullivan ever did were all done by different Michael J Sullivans.  If WP:POLITICIAN implies that all mayors of all cities should have Wikipedia articles, we have a long way to go to write a lot of articles that don't say much at all, but in that case, I can't support the deletion of this particular article.  Additionally, I understand WP:PAPER. CSZero (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess what I'm saying is Wikipedia has a tendency to focus very heavily on current events. There is nothing particularly notable about this particular mayor of Lawrence.  Would it be correct to create stub articles for all mayors going back 150 years? CSZero (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would. The careers of political leaders are an essential part of world history, and a great deal of the history of Lawrence can be discerned through its mayors. It's a basic function of an encyclopedia to try to be comprehensive; an encyclopedia, after all, is a place where people look for things they can't find easily. It's why we have articles on people like Julius Saturninus, a purported Roman emperor about whom we may never know much other than that his troops controlled three provinces for a couple of months. A set of stubs, or even a list of Lawrence mayors with proper redlinks, would give people a start on filling in that history, letting them know what came before Michael J. Sullivan. Rklear (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Back when this issue first came up in early February last year, WP:POLITICIAN didn't explicitly say Mayors are generally notable (See the last revisions from January).  It stopped with "a local politician is notable if he is well-covered in various journals."  Which, of course, is subjective.  He's in the Lowell, Massachusetts newspaper this week because his family is offering a reward for info on whoever fired a gun through a city hall window in the past month.  That's not encyclopedia-level type of stuff in my opinion.  But, since WP:POLITICIAN is clearer than it used to be about mayors in particular, I'll change my vote to *keep* CSZero (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If so, please strike through your Weak delete vote above and change to keep, to make things clearer for the closing admin. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Mayor of a reasonably large city (pop. ~73,000) that therefore meets WP:POLITICIAN. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2009 (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.