Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Simms

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 keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 15:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Simms

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG as a necessary article. Aaaccc (talk), 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is not important enough to have an article. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the mayor of the second largest city in Newfoundland and Labrador, he meets WP:POLITICIAN . Individual assertions of importance or non-importance are not relevant, but consensus notability guidelines are very relevant in this debate. Cullen328 (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pearl has a population of 24,000 alot less than St. John's 100,000. Therefore being the Mayor of the second biggest city in a province doesn't always guarantee notability. Aaaccc (talk), 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep, notable per WP:POLITICIAN (we may want to improve those guidelines). –SJ + 19:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The guideline says that "mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion". You are right, Aaaccc, that this isn't a "guarantee", but I believe that Mount Pearl is of "regional importance". Others may disagree. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the subject meets the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. I'd like to see more sources and coverage, but the subject's claim to notability is sufficient at this point to satisfy our requirements. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:35, 25 March 2011 (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.