Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Rios


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Richard Rios

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person, does not meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG. All the refs are, at most, mere mention of his name -- "A person named Richard Rios filed a petition", basically. No interviews or mini-bios or even a paragraph talking about him, not even in a local paper.

Beyond that, he's not actually notable. He is the Treasurer of the City of La Brea which is well below the lowest criteria of for WP:POLITICIAN. And that's it. Beyond that he's just a private citizen. Statewide Volunteer Director, Rick Perry for President is about the most notable thing. The rest -- member of volunteer team. Orange County California Republican Central Committee Member. This is just not cutting it.

Beyond that, apparently there has been some WP:BLP issues around the article, claims that its a puff piece and then someone wanting to put in some negative info, and it's at the BLP noticeboard, and its not worth the hassle: even assuming that for some reason you figure this guy is borderline, the headache is not worth it. Herostratus (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Herostratus


 * Delete - does not meet any notability requirements. No contest. Maineartists (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - yes, I agree with this nomination. Person fails the wp:notabity tests and per Hero, someone is attempting to add negative content, it's just not worth the hassle. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete If this person was actually notable, then the hassle of maintaining the article would be worthwhile. But he isn't notable. He fails WP:POLITICIAN as treasurer of a city of 33,000 people, and no other plausible claim of notability is made. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  07:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete too low to be notable. The references are passing, and often from sources that are borderline reliable at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice. I wish I'd known this in the November 2016 election; I would have filed a petition to get his name removed from the Brea ballot; but, unless he is recalled or impeached, there's not enough there to be notable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Known what? The he had a Wikipedia article? (If there's information in the article that is useful to real-life voters -- apparently there was to you -- that would be an argument to keep, I guess; fixing/preventing "I wish I'd known this" is exactly why we're here.... huh.) Herostratus (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish I had known about the article, because it contains information that would have affected my vote (I live in Brea.) That doesn't mean he has sufficient notability outside of Brea to have an article here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. In theory, some of the activism could get him over the bar, if he could be sourced over WP:GNG for it — but the referencing here is all either primary sources or glancing mentions of his name in coverage of other things. That's not enough, and nothing here is an automatic WP:NPOL pass just because he exists — Brea isn't large enough that even its mayor would get an automatic NPOL pass on limited sources just for existing, let alone a city employee. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per all above comments. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:37, 28 February 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.