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. Sandstein 10:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Carl Bergmanson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Not notable, fails WP:POLITICIAN as small town mayor and unsuccessful candidate for governor (losing in the primary). Rusf10 ( talk) 03:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep his coverage meets GNG, his coverage in the media runs from 2004 to 2013. -- RAN ( talk) 03:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

As per WP:POLOUTCOMES- "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted."-- Rusf10 ( talk) 03:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I am just expressing my opinion, there is really no need to comment at every entry. -- RAN ( talk) 03:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

He only commented once and totally rebutted your argument... TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 18:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete the guidelines for notability of politicians are such that we scapt formulaic reliance on the general notability guidelines in these cases. Coverage has to be a step above minamalist GNG interpretations. Bergmanson's coverage is all the type of routine coverage that all candidates for every office get. Nothing is even remotely close to showing notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• First this !vote says we must raise the bar above GNG to argue for deletion, which implies that the topic meets GNG.  Later the post says "Nothing remotely close to showing notability".  Seems inconsistent.
  Given that this topic is to be found in five different other articles, this !vote doesn't adequately consider the WP:ATD.  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Losing candidate with only routine coverage. Such politicians are generally deleted per WP:NPOL unless significant multiple sources can help them pass GNG. That is not the case here. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 18:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• WP:ROUTINE is a shortcut to Wikipedia:Notability (events).  Unscintillating ( talk) 21:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Unscintillating and? Look at the coverage we are analyzing and then read the policy. The relevance becomes much less surprising. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• The point of the reply that it is possible to find relevance at the event notability guideline doesn't mean that the !voter has done so.  Unscintillating ( talk) 19:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• As has been pointed out to you approximately 680 billion times since you first attempted this argument, WP:ROUTINE does not only address the notability of things that ARE events, but also explicitly states that it also addresses the standalone notability of PEOPLE involved IN events. Bearcat ( talk) 05:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• 680 billion is an exaggeration that says you don't expect yourself to be taken literally.  Notability generally applies to entire articles.  Unscintillating ( talk) 13:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Yes, and what we're talking about here is an entire article whose notability is in question — so I fail to see how "notability generally applies to entire articles" is a germane response in a discussion where nobody ever said otherwise. Bearcat ( talk) 03:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• I found a previous discussion we had regarding a topic in Minnesota, and your WP:Notability (events) argument was to discount a wedding announcement in the NYT.  If a !vote can't explain the relevance of WP:Notability (events); by inspection, people are not events.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep or Merge  to Mayors of Glen Ridge, New Jersey or Local government of Glen Ridge, New Jersey or Glen Ridge, New Jersey.  Mayors are inherently part of a larger topic on Wikipedia, so Wikipedia's notability is never a threshold for inclusion given WP:SPINOUT and WP:ATD.  Given additional reliable sources, being a losing candidate for a state-level office increases notability.  Being a losing candidate for a state-level office is certainly not a gotcha that prevents editors of Glen Ridge, New Jersey from covering WP:DUE topics of Glen Ridge.  A Wikipedia search on "Carl Bergmanson" shows that the topic is covered in five other articles.  Unscintillating ( talk) 21:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not notable at all. NikolaiHo ^☎️ 04:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep The sourcing in the article and other references available -- as cited by other participants above -- meets the notability standard. Alansohn ( talk) 19:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Neither being mayor of a small town nor being an unsuccessful candidate in a party primary passes WP:NPOL, and the sourcing here is not good enough to claim that he passes WP:GNG in lieu. There are six footnotes, of which one is a repetition of one of the other five — so there are really only five sources, of which one is a WordPress blog, one is his own self-published campaign website, and one is his small town's local pennysaver. None of the article's content or sourcing is enough to deem him notable. Bearcat ( talk) 05:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• See WP:Notability#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article.
  As per the edit notice given to editors posting at AfD, "if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why."  Unscintillating ( talk) 12:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• This marks approximately the seven millionth time you've raised that argument, and the seven millionth time I've had to point out to you that the argument carries weight only insofar as you show the evidence that suitable notability-building sources actually do exist. It is not enough to say that we have to keep it because maybe suitable sources might exist somewhere even though you can't actually be arsed to look for them — the argument only counts for beans if you show some G.D. evidence. Bearcat ( talk) 03:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

It actually is the seventh million time, I've been keeping count. Its annoying, isn't it. Unscintillating makes the same argument all the time. Following his logic absolutely nothing can be deleted because there might be sources out there somewhere to possibly merge the article into another article that may not even exist yet.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 04:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not meet WP:NPOL as a mayor of a small town or as an unsuccessful candidate in a party primary. Coverage is in passing and / or routine. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:GNG for lack of sufficient reliable, independent sources. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:11, 30 December 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.