Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathalie Simon (politician)

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Simon (politician)

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, in a city not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing. This literally just states that she exists, and sources the fact to a single piece of WP:ROUTINE coverage of the results on election night, with no evidence of anywhere near enough substantive coverage about her to get her past the "who have received significant press coverage" condition in our inclusion criteria for mayors. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quick Google search turns up a few items of potential interest, especially "Chateauguay mayor celebrated as hero for turning down bribe" and a bunch of related stories in both English and French. More investigation could be warranted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors of places of less than 50,000 are almost never notable, and no reason is shown that Simon would be an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 30 April 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.