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. Despite two relists, no real further discussion happened, with no !voters addressing the edits the article went through after the last delete !vote, which is also why I decided against relisting again. As such, it's unclear whether the previous deletion !voters would still have argued for deletion based on the current shape of the article. So Why 12:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nerren[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable trial court judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and the coverage of cases he has judged appears to all be WP:MILL. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Squeaks by as a local politician with sufficient references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's one source given which is unambiguously about Nerren, though it's very short and only partly about Nerren. The remaining sources merely mention or list him. This isn't quite enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether the changes made after the last !vote might change the notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Qualifies under "local politician" with adequate sources. See: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.173.217.102.124 (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above IP has no other edits other than to this AFD and is more than likely a sockpuppet of banned editor Billy Hathorn who also created this article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:25, 4 July 2017 (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.