Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Nuaimi
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 20:18, 7 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 20:18, 7 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Nuaimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not established Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 03:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Local politician and city manager; not notable per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - did the nominator abide by WP:BEFORE, which is policy. While the article does not demonstrate notability, we judge the topic and not the article. As it is, apparently this guy was the mayor of a city that now has a population of 200k, and usually with cities that large, in the US, multiple runs for mayor during the internet age, means there is likely the sources out there to satisfy the GNG. All you have to do is look, and have to means mandatory. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In reply: I actually did look and found only trivial local coverage. Did you find anything to satisfy GNG? --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the link above for Google News shows 10 pages of coverage, and only looking at the first page shows 5 articles in which his name is in the headline. I'm not sure why local matters, but the main paper in the search results is the The San Bernardino Sun, which is the main paper for the county of a the same name, which has 2 million people, and also is a major paper in Riverside County, another county with 2 million people. As in not some small-town paper. Most articles are behind paywalls, but based on the blurbs available on Gnews and the sheer volume, I'd say he passes the GNG. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In reply: I actually did look and found only trivial local coverage. Did you find anything to satisfy GNG? --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:POLITICIAN refers to "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office", so being a mayor of a city with 200k population is not, in itself, enough. It's up to whether he meets WP:GNG or not. Bondegezou (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject meets neither WP:POLITICIAN nor WP:GNG; references indicate WP:ROUTINE coverage only. Miniapolis 14:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.