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. Rough consensus means we compare arguments against policy rather than count snouts. Politician is well established and has community consensus and is clear that being el3cted mayor isnt inherantly notable. In the absence of sources to show gng compliance the delete arguments are the ones rooted in policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Bouchard (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)

The only claim for notability seems to be that the subject is a major of a town with population of 36K. Only one reference is to media, and this is that he won the election. Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Lewiston May be small compared to NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. but in Maine, it is one of the larger municipalities. The article can certainly be improved but shouldn’t be deleted. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS. There is a category for Mayors of Lewiston. If you are going to delete the article because you consider Lewiston to be less than significant, then to be consistent you should delete the articles on the other mayors and the category as well.Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. I noticed this article while doing a new page patrolling; a couple of days ago I noticed an article about a major of a town in Pennsylvania and AfDed it as well. I am not doing any systematic search, I understand little in the US politics, and this is not at all my area of interest.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. The wiki worthiness of one article is unrelated to the wiki worthiness of another. Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your diligence, but lacking familiarity with U.S. politics does impair your ability to judge the notability of this article. The size of a city is less important than its relative size in its state in determining the significance of the city in state and national politics.Kiernanmc (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am perfectly qualified to judge the notability of the article. Let us see what other users say.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly qualified? For one thing, Bouchard's position is "mayor" not "major," a mistake you have now made twice. For another thing, you yourself admitted you "understand little in the US politics, and this is not at all my area of interest." At the very least, editors ought to restrict themselves to editing in topics they understand.Kiernanmc (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for turning the discussion into the direction of ad hominem attacks. I am sure the closing administrator will appreciate this and notice that your arguments are not policy-based.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject is the mayor of Maine's second-largest city and therefore a significant political figure in the state. His predecessor has a page, and we should err on the side of inclusion. In doing so, we can provide people in Lewiston and across Maine with more information about their government and its leaders, rather than less.Kiernanmc (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you. I was just about to add that I found out Lewiston is Maine’s second largest CITY, not a town. Plus, his election has received coverage in the Seattle Times.Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it did, thanks for pointing that out. Deleting this article would be akin to saying that the mayor of Buffalo, NY didn't deserve an article either.Kiernanmc (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep City mayors are notable by default. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect; WP:NOTABILITY says exactly the opposite, that they are not notably by default.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So YM, please clarify. Now that you know Lewiston is the second largest CITY in Maine, why should this article be deleted but other Lewiston mayors should not be deleted?Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel welcome to nominate other mayors as well, I will support if I come across these nominations. I do not have an obligation to nominate them myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t answer my question. Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then your reading comprehension needs improvement. I asked about Shane Bouchard. But that is okay if you choose not to answer. You must be intellectually lazy and insecure if you don’t want to rebut the arguments put forth by others. Postcard Cathy (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a personal attack. You asked me whether other articles on mayors of Lewiston should be deleted. I answered I would support deletion (I should have added provided they are not notable according to WP:GNG). I actually did it twice. If you conclusion is that I behave disruptively, WP:ANI is that far away.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Like everyone but the OP, I believe the mayor of the second-largest city in Maine merits inclusion in Wikipedia.134.181.29.12 (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC) — 134.181.29.12 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. [reply]
• Comment. The keep side still failed to produce a policy-based argument.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously all users except you who have interacted with this AfD disagree. I hope the closing admin recognizes the overwhelming consensus for Keep.Kiernanmc (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is exacly my point. If the closing admin recognizes consensus and ignores the fact that there were no policy-based arguments except for those provided by me than we are going to be at DRV in no time. I clearly cited the policy which saya mayors are not notable unless they satisfy WP:GNG, nobody responded to that in a satisfactorily matter.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I can't find any significant coverage about Bouchard besides that he won the election. Indeed, what little coverage there is provides almost no biographical info, which would be necessary to build an article that's more than a stub. I think it's just WP:TOOSOON - he should be getting coverage once he actually does something. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NPOL item 3 (quoted by TimTempleton, above) is pretty clear that just being elected isn't good enough. If you want to get WP:NPOL changed, start a discussion there. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 13 January 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.