Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank D'Amico

:{{la|Frank D'Amico}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frank_D%27Amico Stats])

:({{Find sources|Frank D'Amico}})

WP:BLP of a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:POLITICIAN. Referenced exclusively to unretrievably incomplete sources that cite only the name of the publication and the date, and not the actual title of the article in question. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete A local politician that does not pass notability requirements for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete this is local ordinary politician, based on past outcomes and in accord with the nomination. As noted in other, concurrent nominations, we are not a directory of local officials. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Politicians are the one category of biographies to whom GNG is generally not applied; instead a Special Notability high bar is frequently used, giving automatic passes to elected members of national and provincial assemblies, tending to give easy passes to national and provincial party leaders, and dealing with unelected politicians harshly on a case by case basis. Elected members of city councils are a grey area, with those of major metropolitan areas almost always kept while those of tiny towns usually treated as self-serving promotion. And so here we have a bio that is in the grey area of the grey area, an elected city council member from a mid-sized city. My opinion is that we should keep this one and here's why: it's a well done piece, it's a well sourced piece, and Wikipedia is better off with the piece than without it. Ignore All Rules, Use Common Sense. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

::It's sourced exclusively to unverifiably incomplete and therefore unretrievable references. Which makes it a "well-sourced" article how, exactly? And Wikipedia is not better off with than it is without biographies of people who aren't topics of broad interest to a national or international, rather than exclusively single-city local, readership — such an article is not viably maintainable for WP:BLP compliance if it doesn't attract a broad enough readership that vandalism or unsourced POV criticism can be caught promptly. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete, blatantly fails our notability requirements for politicians. Incomplete sources as pointed by nominator. Cavarrone 12:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Councillors in very large cities may be notable by virtue of their office, but Hamilton is nowhere near large enough to qualify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2014 (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.