Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irma Anderson

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 no consensus. Unfortunately, WP:POLITICIAN has no opinon here. I cannot determine a consensus among participants. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irma Anderson

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

Non-notable politician; outdated article. Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough. Split from this AfD Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - One of a series of cut-and-paste deletion nominations by this nominator. No indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed in this case. I also find it offensive and contrary to policy that independent, published coverage in the local press is deemed not "independent enough." This is not NewYorkCitypedia or Londonpedia or Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This vote should be retracted, as it's clear the editor hasn't even bothered to read the article, and is voting to keep a load of cruft on this Wiki. This article, and all the other ones nominated in a similar matter, are permastubs created in a fly-by-night manner and should have been deleted years ago. And it's by no means offensive to say local news doesn't count. There are many items that are required in policy and/or supported by the consensus of editors. What's offensive is your procedural keep vote Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no confirmation of the claim that she was the first African-American woman mayor of a major California city - only that she was the first African-American woman to be mayor of Richmond. Her career and news coverage are otherwise unremarkable. However, I object to your rote claim that the article is "outdated". I personally updated this article on December 3, to reflect her prior service on the council. I would appreciate it if you would respond to these articles in their current state, rather than the state they were in before your first mass nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a bad faith mass nomination, also I am from Richmond and I recall her claiming to be the first female black mayor of a major California city, this makes her notable, also she got a lot of press coverage as one of the rare mayors to lose an incumbancy, not only that, she lost to a green party member (Gayle McLaughlin) and this was a very close and tighly watched race which I remember making at least statewide news. She ran against Gayle again later to try and win back the seat but lost. Richmond is a major city as well, the US Census Bureau defines a major or large city as those over 100,000 people. Luciferwildcat (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should that happen to be true, you should be able to find a plethora of reliable sources for it. And I doubt Richmond is that major a city; keep in mind there are something on the order of 200 similarly-sized cities in the United States. Also, please not that at AN it has been affirmed that this nomination was not in bad faith Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can I just don't have the time, but I was able to do so for Harpreet Sandhu and can for this woman. If you as much as tried you could find sources, hopefully the {{recue}} can help with that. You doubt Richmond is a city over 100,000 people and that the US census defines that as a large/major city? That is disputed. There are hundreds of cities around the world with over a million people as well, so you present a false dichotomy. It smells like bad faith, especially when you argue against common sense and sources. Also that AN discussion is over let it go. Furthermore it's makes you look very bad when you insist people share your viewpoint the way you do and obsess over things.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks insufficiently notable to me. A one term mayor in the 61st largest town of an American state? Seriously? Bit worried by the unusual and aggressive tone of the Keep arguments here. Hint of sock puppetry in the air here. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment, California is the most populous state in the third most populous nation in the world, 61st still means over a hundred thousand, which in most states is one of the largest cities.LuciferWildCat (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's relevant why exactly? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was in response to your comment on this only being California's 61st largest city. In one word, perspective. Now how was it relevant to state that it was only the 61st largest city?LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She sails past the WP:GNG due to the significant coverage she has received for her political roles since the mid 90s. That trumps all these arguments back and forth about her "importance" - not a factor we care about on Wikipedia. It's all about the sources, and she's received plenty of newspaper inches. It would make no sense to delete this biography. Fences&Windows 01:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN and no evidence has been provided of the alleged significant press coverage. Politicians are not auromatically notable and certainly not notable for something someone thinks they might have heard her say. Sionk (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "alleged", the coverage obvious to anyone who bothers to look at Google News. Fences&Windows 19:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the articles on that search you'll see the top two are not about Andreson but about her successor Gayle Mclauchlin. The 3rd one possibly shows Anderson pushed a controversial policy. Many of the remainder are behind a paywall, so it's difficult to comment on them. Notability requires significant coverage, over and above the normal mentions you'd expect during a mayoral term. Sionk (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She received coverage. Google news archive search has hundreds of results for her name and the name of the city she was elected to run. A mayor of a city of a hundred thousand people will get coverage. I see no reason to bother going through the various links, and trying to find one that isn't hidden behind a paywall. Dream Focus 12:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will again point out that just because Richmond has a population of a little over 100,000 doesn't make everyone associated with it significant. And if an person is significant, info about them shouldn't a) just be in small local papers and blogs; and b) not just be behind paywalls Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Carrite and others, there are concerns about this nomination and WP:BEFORE. Further, I see no theoretical possibility that this article would be outright deleted—it has an edit history with good faith edits, and there is no case to be made to delete the redirect. I found that the San Francisco Chronicle, a major regional newspaper, provides coverage of Richmond politics and has an accessible archive. This page has snippets that show relevant references. For the record, the first hit on this page states, "The incumbent is Irma Anderson, who became the first African American woman elected mayor of a major California city... Unscintillating (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, BEFORE doesn't necessarily have to be followed 100% of the time; especially in a fairly obvious deletion case like this where the subject fails two notability guidelines, POLITICIAN and ANYBIO. And what do the edits being in good faith have to do with anything? They don't...if a non-notable article is created with good faith edits, it can still be deleted. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you explain the 98 references I just provided from the San Francisco Chronicle? Unscintillating (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References my left foot. How many of them actually give the in-depth coverage about Anderson needed to establish notability? And more to the point, if this person is notable, how come you can't produce references that aren't local in nature? Oh, right, because she fails ANYBIO and POLITICIAN. Forgot about that Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I've commented about the dodginess of some of the same identical keep !votes here. Reyk _YO! 01:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources exists. See Google News search link below.

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before yet another person points out how many Google hits this person has, they may want to re-read WP:PEOPLE, particularly 'Invalid criteria' which specifically says:

"Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking) ...for most topics search engines cannot easily differentiate between useful references and mere text matches... When using a search engine to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links. Sionk (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analyzing the quality, I see five different news sources on the first page of hits, every hit is more than trivial coverage = significant coverage, sources include Los Angeles Times, and National Public Radio. It would appear that this one page alone, just from looking at the snippets, establishes wp:notability by way of WP:GNG. Are you satisfied now that someone has evaluated the quality? Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, as when I did the GoogleNews search you had, I didn't get those. I got mostly Contra Costa Times. Put the links right here in the AFD. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And when I checked to see if the NPR source you speak of existed, I got a blank page, except for "For transcripts, go to NPR.org". Furthermore, you still haven't answered questions of whether this person passes the more applicable guidelines of POLITICIAN and ANYBIO, rather than the amorphous GNG Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have the answer those questions. If a topic meets WP:GN then all other criteria are irrelevant.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily true. Just because something meets GNG doesn't mean we have to have it. And I still maintain that this person is too trivial, and the references aren't in-depth enough from reliable enough sources, for this to be kept Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failing WP:GNG doesn't equate to a delete, it defaults to a merge. Unscintillating (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There isn't a good reason for a merge or redirect of this content. It should be deleted Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:28, 15 December 2011 (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.