Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Heyck

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. Daniel (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Heyck

[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)

WP:BLP of a former smalltown mayor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just for existing as mayors -- the notability test is the abiliity to write and source a substantive article about his political significance. But this just documents his pre-mayoral career background, says essentially nothing about anything he actually did as mayor, and is not well-referenced: of the five footnotes here, two are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, a third is a Q&A interview in which he's answering questions in the first person on a non-notable tourist information blog, one just briefly namechecks his existence in a news article about his successor, and the only one that's both reliable and substantively about him is just a run of the mill piece of campaign coverage in the local media, which isn't enough to get him over the bar all by itself if it's the only viable source in play. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much more substance and sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete no notability evident from the article. --hroest 14:31, 13 May 2021 (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.