Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John J. Spitznogle Jr.

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. Enigma^msg 05:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Spitznogle Jr.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Only sources are from the city's mayor office, a family genealogy website, and a "find a grave" website. My before search brought up even less than you usually see, with only seven possible hits on newspapers.com, and only 101 Google results total when you put his full name into quotes, mostly Wikipedia mirrors. I did try other searches as well and there's such a scarcity of sources I'm actually worried I missed something. SportingFlyer talk 05:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Melbourne FL is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic presumption of notability WP:NPOL #2 just for existing — at this size of city, a mayor has to show enough coverage to clear WP:GNG before the article can be created in the first place, and it is not enough to simply assume that local media coverage of him exists somewhere nobody's bothered to actually look. But this isn't showing even one piece of the kind of coverage it takes to make a mayor notable. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time that Wikipedia stopped reflecting the personal preferences of a few editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally revoted a second time, because I wasn't paying enough attention and didn't notice that one of the above votes was mine. Removing second comment. Sorry, y'all. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2018 (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.