Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Rexe


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul Rexe

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non notable. No indication of notability. The references given on the whole either do not mention him or are not found. Only the Trent alumni magazine mentions him at all and that does not show any notability. Google search finds very few hits and nothing to establish notabilty. noq (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Coverage about this person does exist in the local community press. For example this article is one of several that I found about him in MyKawartha.  However, this is insufficient for him to meet WP:POLITICIAN for me.  He clearly fails (1) as he has only held office at the municipal level.  He fails (2) as I don't consider the coverage in the local community paper significant.  And (3) really is saying the WP:GNG always applies, and he does not meet it as the coverage is limited to a local community paper. -- Whpq (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- our notability guideline stresses reliability and editorial independence, not the size of the publication. If we think local community papers should not be included when determining notability, then the community can change the guideline; in the meantime this article meets the community's requirements. I found multiple substantive mentions in reliable publications from searching Google News Archive I'll also note that the Toronto Star covers a pretty big local community. Some of this material, not presently included in the article, is unflattering, a fact that User:Rexism should have thought about before starting this article (see WP:LUC). At the same time, those articles do establish notability. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. There are two different uses of reliable sources which seem to be conflated in this AfD: (1) Can we verifiably document the factual information about the subject that we've included in the article? Yes. Local newspapers are fine for that. (2) Do the sources attest to the significance of the subject? Would someone looking at this article come away from it with a clear idea of what this person is known for and why there's a Wikipedia article about him? No. National-level media coverage would do that but the kind of coverage that's in the current article doesn't. There are other ways to find significance, for instance WP:PROF outlines several and WP:POLITICIAN several more (if he were a member of parliament rather than a local alderman, he'd automatically be significant regardless of whether the actual sources we could find about him were in local newspapers) but neither of those seem to work in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficiently notable. Properly sourced. Round the Horne (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being a proud farmer is admirable but not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete basically what Eppstein said, the criteria are not there. Hekerui (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - local only successes, the rest of the article contains a modest CV and a list of failures: failed to win mayor, failed to win writing award in spite of multiple nominations, failed in his federal bid, failed marriage.  Rklawton (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2010 (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.