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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

John Barros

John Barros (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Local politician who fails WP:POLITICIAN. No sign of notability beyond local politics. John B123 ( talk) 17:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. John B123 ( talk) 17:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. John B123 ( talk) 17:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - just the routine local politics coverage. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, when is a politician too local or too routine for inclusion in Wikipedia? Appears to pass WP:GNG to me. NemesisAT ( talk) 22:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, passes GNG which is specifically called out in WP:POLITICIAN, there's press coverage from before his mayoral bid ( 1, 2), a ton of expected but not overly notable coverage from announcement of his mayoral bid and through all the candidate forums, and then a few more deep dives recently ( 1, 2). EoRdE6^{( Come Talk to Me!)} 00:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, without prejudice against recreation if the basis for notability changes in the future. Literally by definition, every candidate for mayor everywhere will always be able to show some evidence of campaign coverage in the local media of the city where they're running for mayor, precisely because giving equal time to candidates in local elections is literally local media's job — so if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to give candidates a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would never actually apply to anybody at all anymore. So no, run of the mill campaign coverage doesn't cut it — you need to demonstrate that either (a) he already had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of political candidacies (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) he could credibly claim that his candidacy was markedly more special than other people's candidacies, in such a way that even if he loses the election and never accomplishes another thing in his life, his candidacy itself would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway (the Christine O'Donnell test). But this article demonstrates neither of those things, so just having campaign coverage in the context of running for mayor isn't enough as it isn't any different from what every other person who ever ran for mayor of a city also has. Bearcat ( talk) 19:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep The coverage in the article isn't great, but coverage like [1] isn't about a political campaign. I think there's just enough to keep. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:32, 29 July 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.