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. One two three... 03:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Duehay[edit]

Francis Duehay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is an article for an obscure mayor of a town. It is only a few sentences long. It does not even have the mayor's date of birth. Unless it can be expanded, (which I doubt it can for someone so obscure), it should probably either merged, redirected, or deleted entirely. Bibbly Bob (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I totally agree with you on a delete, but the article has not been tagged for a deletion. There's a process that you have to go through before listing an article on the deletion forum. This was apparently part of a project to do an article about all the mayors of Cambridge, Massachusetts, but there is no inherent right to an article simply for having been a mayor of a city, and thus no entitlement to a stub. Unless there's some independent coverage of Mr. Duehay outside of the Boston area, I don't think he would qualify. Mandsford (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would New York Times suffice? [1]. P.S. "Out of area" argument does not seem that strong knowing that Cambridge is home to MIT and Harvard. The publishing capacity of this little town is far above that of its peers and I won't rule out Harvard site at all [2]. NVO (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Cambridge is not a town, but a city of over 1000,000. That's sufficient for notability. DGG (talk)

Last time it was over 100,000 - they grow fast these days :)) Anyway, a town of 100,000 qualifying as a city? NVO (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, then. The idea that every mayor of every city in the world with over 100,000 people is "entitled" to his or her own article strikes me as ridiculous. Certainly, there's no policy of inherent notability for such persons. Mandsford (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can someone interested give a welcome hug to the nominator? He made first edit on May 15 (straight to AFD) [3] and no one, I mean no one on earth said a welcome... NVO (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're suggesting, but it doesn't affect the merits of the debate. The New York Times articles that you've cited indicate that Mr. Duehay is notable for something other than having been the Mayor of Cambridge, which would suggest a keep on the merits. My objection is to the concept that someone is excused from demonstrating notability if he or she has ever served as a city mayor. Category:Mayors of Cambridge, Massachusetts is someone's pet project, but I think that most people would question the need for it. Mandsford (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2009 (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.