Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Putnam Sevier


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

William Putnam Sevier

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Former mayor of small town (less than 10,000 people) who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The sources in this article do nothing to establish notability. They are: 1) a listing of his headstone; 2) a personal assurance from the author of the article that he called the mayor's office ; 3) A self-published online family history; 4) a self-published bio of Sevier from a family member on the same website; 5) a permanent dead link; a book that has no actual mention of Sevier; and 7) an unlinked article in a local newspaper. GPL93 (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable local politician....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Mayor for 27 years. To quote from wp:N "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." As a mayor of more than 25 years standing he will almost certainly have several obituaries in state-wide newspapers and a lot of press in that quarter of a century outside them. Those will be enough to satisfy notability unless there have been a remarkable number of library fires. Neonchameleon (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not enough to just say that better sources probably exist "unless there have been a remarkable number of library fires" — anybody could say that about literally anything, including total hoaxes, if all they had to do was say it and had no requirement whatsoever to actually prove it. To get an article kept on WP:NEXIST grounds, you have to show hard evidence that the necessary depth and volume and range of sources to get him over the bar definitely does exist, not just guess that it probably does. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless somebody can actually show evidence that enough quality sourcing to change the equation actually exists out there. As I explained above, we do not extend articles an exemption from AFD consideration just because somebody theorizes that better sources probably exist — salvaging a poorly sourced article requires showing the actual hard results of an actual search for better sources, not just unsubstantiated speculation about the prospects of maybe finding better sources someday. Even outright hoaxes wouldn't be deletable from Wikipedia if all you had to do to save them was speculate that maybe there might be better sources out there in the world than anybody has actually found or shown. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete mayors are not inherently notable, though ones of major cities almost always pass WP:GNG. He is not a mayor of a major city and does not appear to pass WP:GNG after source review, which isn't surprising given the article's beginnings. SportingFlyer  T · C  07:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat. As it stands, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. The sources that do exist are mainly self-published or unverifiable sources. The article also alludes to famous relatives, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2019 (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.