Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Yenni


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Mike Yenni

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject was a local (county level) politician who was caught hitting on a male student. Subject fails WP:NPOL. The incident got some newspaper coverage and became a local scandal. Bottom line, local pol caught in local sex scandal does not ring the WP:N bell. See also WP:BLP1E. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - local politician, only routine media coverage except for a minor sex scandal. Does not meet notability criteria. --IamNotU (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable local level politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Local politicians are not handed an automatic presumption of notability just because a small handful of local coverage offers technical verification that they exist — for both mayors and county/parish presidents, the notability test is the ability to demonstrate that they're significantly more notable than the norm for that level of office, by virtue of having much more, deeper and/or geographically wider coverage than just what every mayor of everywhere can always show. But Kenner LA is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of much better sourcing than this — and having local notoriety for having had an inappropriate relationship with a teenager is not in and of itself something that automatically makes him special in the absence of any evidence that it got wider than just local coverage, either. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "name and shame the sex offenders" database — we consider the enduring significance of our article topics, not just their temporary newsiness, and nothing here satisfies the ten year test. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2020 (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.