Joseph Michael Polisena Jr.: Sourcing is purely routine local media coverage.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 17:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Rhode Island .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 17:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Johnson RI is nowhere near large enough that its mayors would get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but neither the sourcing nor the substance here are strong enough to get him over the bar.  We require a lot more than just the same run of the mill verification of the mayor's existence in his local media that every mayor of everywhere can always show.  Bearcat ( talk ) 18:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Boston Globe is not a local newspaper it is read internationally and in addition to his national TV coverage over the statue the Boston Globe have covered this individual in significant depth which means not only do they meet C2 of WP:NPOL they also meet WP:BASIC "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[8]" "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" and C1 of WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.[7]" Here are the Boston Globe articles https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/01/10/metro/one-rhode-island-town-soft-spoken-son-is-replacing-his-fiery-dad-mayor/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/04/22/metro/one-governor-mckees-top-supporters-is-wavering/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/08/29/metro/small-rhode-island-town-big-issue-about-first-amendment/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/01/10/metro/johnston-might-replace-one-mayor-polisena-with-another-mayor-polisena/ Here's a mention in the New York Times the USA's newspaper of national record https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/08/us/elections/results-rhode-island-mayor-johnston.html Here's a mention in the Seattle Times https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/columbus-statue-removed-from-a-square-in-providence-rhode-island-re-emerges-in-nearby-town/ The US National newspaper Washington Examiner covered his Christopher Columbus statue that he bequeathed to the good people of Johnston which not only reminded them of one of the first Europeans to stumble across America but it also reminded America of The Telltale Head which is one of the best Simpsons episodes in the history of The Simpsons .  The statue saga also appeared in another national newspaper; https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-u-s-news/ap-columbus-statue-removed-from-a-square-in-providence-rhode-island-re-emerges-in-nearby-town/ I could go on and on about how this subject meets WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC but the bottom line is if you delete this page from Wikipedia you would be deleting the United States of America's soul.  𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 11:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When it comes to Wikipedia notability claim, "local coverage" is not a question of the publication's readership range, it's a question of the geographic distance between the publication's offices and the thing they're covering .  That is, the mayor of a suburb of Boston is not automatically a national figure just because he has the expected run of the mill local-interest coverage in a Boston newspaper with a wider-than-just-Metro-Boston readership — he only starts to be able to claim nationalizing significance if he's getting substantive coverage in media outlets whose offices and coverage focus are physically and editorially removed from the Boston media market.  But that New York Times hit is just a table of election results, which doesn't cut it at all, and that Seattle Times hit is just a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that isn't about him , which doesn't cut it either.  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 02:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per our normal guideline - a mayor of a small town who has only received local/regional political coverage, who isn't notable for anything else.  SportingFlyer T · C 14:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I'd like to see some assessment about the sources presented in this discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With regards to sources asked for in the relist, they are not sources which can get a mayor of a small town over and above the notability threshold.  SportingFlyer T · C 23:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I agree that those sources aren't enough–the Boston Globe articles are pretty much WP:ROTM political coverage, only of interest to the local area, the NY Times article is ridiculous as a claim to notability–it is a page on election results, the Seattle Times article isn't bad, but Polisena is not the subject of it, and same thing with the Hill article; and what does The Simpsons have to do with it?  "Deleting this article would be deleting America's soul?"  What?  Very bizarre argument.  Per their userpage, maybe they were stoned while making it...  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Johnston is not nearly large enough to give inherited notability to mayors, and pretty much all the coverage I can find is WP:ROTM mayoral coverage or local stuff.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:43, 20 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete