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. Euryalus (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Hayward (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)

Fails WP:NPOL. Office is not high enough for an automatic pass and all coverage is local.John from Idegon (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no provision in NPOL or GNG that discounts local coverage. In addition, he has been covered nationally. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - See WP:POLOUTCOMES John from Idegon (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how an essay trumps the guidelines. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OUTCOMES documents the actual state of consensus about how the guidelines apply in actual practice. This is not a case of an essay "trumping" the guidelines; the essay serves to clarify where consensus stands about what the guidelines actually mean in specific situations where there might be differences of opinion about that. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bearcat, then I have a difference of opinion I guess. I simply disagree that someone with significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources isn't notable enough. I'm not someone who just votes keep on every AfD. I nominate a lot of articles for deletion. I would never nominate an article that meets WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• But where do we have significant coverage being shown here? All that's been shown here is one piece of routine campaign coverage of the type that will exist for every mayoral election regardless of who the candidates are or aren't, three dead links whose headlines indicate that they were also routine campaign coverage, one dead link whose headline betrays that it was far more about his wife than about him, and one video clip of him giving soundbite about a topic other than himself on the news. How is any of that enough to clear the GNG bar? Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bearcat, that's a fair question. I did a Google search and assumed they were included in the article. From Google, there is significant coverage in the Pulse, pnj.com, wuwf.org, Studer Community Institute, BlabTV, indystar.com, weartv.com, nydailynews.com, Huffington Post, and Business Observer Florida. And that's just the first page. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The coverage is routine to Hayward's election, and some of it more related to the situation under which he was elected than anything else. The article lacks the level of sourcing we need to justify having an article for a mayor of a city of about 50,000.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While 50K is certainly large enough to get a mayor kept if he can be sourced over WP:GNG for it, it's not large enough to give him an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as a mayor. But the volume and depth of sourcing present here is not enough to get him over the bar, and the MSNBC link shown by Ramaksoud2000 above doesn't bolster the case either — it's a clip of him giving talking head on the news about Donald Trump, not coverage which has Hayward as its subject. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bearcat. 51,000 is not large by any means for a city. WP:NPOL only addresses likelihood of being notable, not actual notability. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2016 (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.