Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lock Davidson

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. ✗plicit 09:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lock Davidson

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Lock Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL notability guidelines. Rusf10 (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Messy, skimpy article built mostly on unreliable genealogical websites. The one claim about renaming Palm Bay, while perhaps interesting, probably doesn't even suffice as WP:1E territory. My WP:BEFORE is turning up records congressional testimony (which lots of US municipal officials have given over the years), a mention in a record of business litigation (routine court documents/decisions), brief entries listing his business, and an alumni publication of a frat that lists him as a member. None of this is significant coverage in secondary sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Melbourne FL is not a large or important enough city to confer an automatic presumption of notability on all of its mayors under WP:NPOL just because they existed, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to actually pass WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It doesn't meet WP:GNG as not referenced anywhere about the subject. Zackdasnicker (talk) 18:02, 20 April 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.