Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip LaTessa (2nd nomination)


 * 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, contributions) 18:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Philip LaTessa
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an auditor at the city level, and non-winning candidate for higher office. Neither of these are claims that pass WP:NPOL in and of themselves, but the article isn't sourced to anywhere near enough reliable source coverage about him to clear the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders — this is sourced to one article about his initial election as auditor, one article about his announcement that he was running for state assembly, and one article about the final election results, which is not a depth or breadth of coverage that makes him notable for those things per se. Every local officeholder anywhere at all, and every non-winning candidate for office in any election, could always show these things, which makes them routine rather than notability-assisting sources. To deem him notable, we would need to see coverage about his work in the auditor's role, and/or evidence that his non-winning candidacy was significantly more notable than most other non-winning candidates — none of which is being demonstrated here at all, which means nothing here is grounds for a Wikipedia article. (Note: not eligible for speedy as a recreation of deleted content, because even though being a non-winning candidate isn't grounds for notability it does postdate the original deletion and is thus still different from the first article.) Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per nom, doesn't pass the bar of WP:NPOL. Happy to reconsider my position if non-WP:ROUTINE coverage of his service as city auditor can be turned up.  A  Train talk 22:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Doesn't meet the notability under WP:NPOL as a politician. There isn't the significant coverage that would meet notability under WP:GNG. -- Whpq (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV. The position he held, in a moderately large city, is significant. If more sources could be found, I'd be convinced to allow the article to stay. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 14 October 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.