Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert D. Jackson


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Robert D. Jackson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable mayors from Montclair, NJ. All fail WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 03:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 03:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 03:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 03:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 03:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete nothing more than local coverage for this politican. Total failure of the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Purely local coverage always exists for everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere at all, but we do not automatically accept that everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere at all is always automatically notable per WP:NPOL #2 — to make a mayor notable enough for inclusion, what needs to be shown is coverage that goes significantly above and beyond what could merely be expected to exist: either wider coverage than just the purely local, or enough work having been put into the article that it's genuinely substantial and cites a lot more than just two pieces of local coverage. But neither of those are in evidence here at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 16 December 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.