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. –  Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 17:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

Politician who fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. Mayor of a smallish city (not even one of the 20 largest cities in its county). No independent sources are provided in the article; in a search I found only a few passing mentions of him. MelanieN ( talk) 07:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 08:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 08:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Indeed, a city with a population of 44K is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL. It's large enough that a genuinely substantive and properly sourced article about the mayor could potentially be kept, but it doesn't give the mayor an automatic entitlement to keep an article that's effectively just a thinly veiled rewrite of his own campaign bio, or that's sourced only to his own campaign bio on his own campaign website (which would have been an invalid primary source that could not confer notability even if it weren't now a dead link.) So it's possible that he might qualify for a good article, if somebody can write and source one, but he's in no way entitled to keep this. delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not notable as a politician and lacks the significant independent coverage required by the GNG. 131.118.229.17 ( talk) 20:57, 21 October 2014 (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.