Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael F. Carroll

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael F. Carroll

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

WP:BLP of a municipal councillor, in a village not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its municipal councillors under WP:NPOL. This is not based on enough reliable sources to pass the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders, either -- of the seven sources here, two are primary sources (his own self-published profiles on the websites of his own political party and his own law firm), one is a user-generated local community wiki and one is a local WordPress blog, and the three remaining media sources are purely WP:ROUTINE since every municipal councillor everywhere could always show three pieces of purely local coverage. At this level of government, what it takes to get an article is evidence that he's significantly more notable than the norm by virtue of having garnered significantly more coverage than village councillors routinely get, but nothing here is demonstrating any evidence of that. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN; the sources here just don't establish notability. --Kbabej (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The routine coverage in local news is insufficient for the subject to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Deli nk (talk) 16:41, 21 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.