Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Brown (mayor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Brown (mayor)

Michael Brown (mayor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Aside from being mayor of Grand Forks, North Dakota, pop 53,230, this man has no other claim to notability. Wikipedia consensus has long found that mayors of small-to-medium sized cities are not deserving of their own articles. Prod tag removed on grounds that Grand Forks is third-largest city in North Dakota. Noble Sponge (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Your prod claimed consensus was against "small-town mayors", you've now changed that to "small-to-medium sized cities" in this AfD. Could you point to where this consensus was actually formed so that the actual wording can be seen? IMO size is relative, and the third-largest city in a state should be considered large enough to be worth covering details like this. Keep. Bryan Derksen (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge any relevant information to Grand Forks, North Dakota and then delete per nom. Certainly not notable enough for his own article per WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, and nothing but his name needs to be in the city article. Below WP:BIO and well below my generous personal standard of mayors of cities > 100,000. --Dhartung | Talk 16:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - An obstetrician in a town of 50,000 people is not worthy of an article, but an obstetrician who also just happens to be the mayor of a town the size of Grand Forks is worthy of an article. Aside from simply being the mayor of Grand Forks, it should probably also be pointed out in the article that he has been the mayor during the formative, evolving years immediately following the devastating flood and fire of 1997. Brown has helped to reshape an American city and for that he is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. --MatthewUND(talk) 01:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Why are obstetrician-mayors notable? Please cite policy. Don't most mayors of smaller communities have other jobs? --Dhartung | Talk 05:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dhartung--why is the combination notable? Being mayor of a town that size is obviously not a full time job, so there will necessarily be some other profession. Most typically it's law, but not exclusively.DGG (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment You misunderstood me. I didn't mean that Brown being an obsterician warrants his having an article. I meant that the fact that...aside from being an obstetrician...he is the mayor of a town the size of Grand Forks warrants his having an article. Add Grand Forks' relative importance in this part of the country (very few large cities here, folks) and the fact that Brown has been mayor for two terms immediately following a destructive natural disaster...I think Brown warrants an article. --MatthewUND(talk) 00:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's a "Major local political figure" (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians), has a lot of coverage in the Grand Forks Herald (expectedly), but also pops up incidentally in other publications. Deleting city councillors per WP:BIO, sure, but not mayors of cities. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Examples of this incidental coverage? Noble Sponge (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
How about here, here, and here. Not too hard to search '"Michael Brown" Grand forks'. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is going to be necessarily subjective, but I'd say that the mayor of a city this size is notable; of course, being the mayor of a city this size doesn't overrule WP:N, but I'd be astonished if third party coverage wasn't available. Moreover, I disagree with User:DGG that "being mayor of a town that size is obviously not a full time job"; I lived for a time in St. Albert, Alberta, which is of similar size, and its mayor is full-time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. If mayors from other towns/cities are able to be on Wiki why not this one? He is a major politician in the state and in the area as well as the fact that his town is of one of notability should make him notable as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazzaler (talk • contribs) 17:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I prod tagged many mayors of even smaller towns, and my tags were systematically removed. Noble Sponge (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, because PROD is for articles whose deletion is unlikely to be disputed. The subjects of many of those articles have been covered by "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail" which "are independent of the subject". It's what WP:Notability says. I suggest you familiarise yourself with it before you run off to tag more articles for proposed deletion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
        • In fairness, users are allowed to prod whatever they like; it's determined to be noncontentious if nobody removes the tag. In the case of those mayors, I removed the tags; but Noble Sponge wasn't behaving inappropriately in any way, I don't think. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2008 (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.