Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Stewart

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. However given the heavy level of participation in this discussion, I would suggest a brief respite before renominating Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Stewart

Erin Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has had numerous problems since its inception.

☖ 08:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 09:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 09:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 09:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 09:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
What is routine about a profile in the New York Times. Where are the profiles of the other 500 metropolitan mayors that served during this period? --RAN (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  As per recent discussion at DRV, mayors can be (rebuttably) presumed notable somewhere above the 50000 range, which applies here for a city of 73,000.  For mayors ATD prevails over DEL8, since mayors always have a redirect/merge target.  But the nomination here has cited WP:ADVOCACY.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
☖ 03:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
On the one hand, when Florida based Newsmax says, "Considerable state and national press attention is focused on Stewart, whose upset win at age 26 over Democratic Mayor Tim O’Brien in 2013 made her an overnight Republican superstar in the Nutmeg State.", this is pretty strong evidence of GNG.  On the other hand, User:MJL has opened me to the view that this is a case in which the encyclopedia is currently only interested in the topic from the viewpoint of the city, which makes this a case in which a GNG pass is a WP:N failure.  The editing task is easier said than done, though, so a "Merge" result from this AfD should not mean that editors can't change their mind.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I one hundred percent agree with you. I really appreciate your openness through this process,
☖ 04:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The problem with this is that
Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent
.
Now, on to another problem, does this article meet
WP:BASIC
as has been suggested. BASIC requires that "[the topic] received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources..." With only one instance of sorta-national, sorta-regional, coverage, it can be hard to call it sustained for someone that may well just remain a local mayor.
Maybe if you disagree with me about the Newsmax thing, then I could see your point. But, to do that, you have to look past we call
NewsMax
an influential conservative publication and in this instance only quotes the topic in the article (and say it is independent). You also would have to say that this article should be presumed notable for coverage that does not go beyond the state. You would have to be able to verify that notability, which I have not seen that done.
I hope this clears some things up. –
☖ 03:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with you. However, there is a group of people here who keep trying to argue that if the New York Times covers something then it must be notable. When I point out that the NYT has regional/local coverage and a particular article was included in that section, I get the response that I am dismissing the NYT as a local source and it is in fact an "international newspaper". Then the next argument they throw at you is, well all reliable sources count as significant coverage and categorize them as local anyways. The point is that every mayor everywhere gets some type of local press coverage. In some cases it just so happens that the NYT is that local newspaper. If we are to accept that all subjects of NYT articles are notable, it creates a bias towards inclusion of tri-state area mayors.--
Rusf10 (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
When editors make notability assertions based on inclusion in the NYT, they often lose their minds. The front page is one thing, Travel and Leisure or the Connecticut section is another. The logical conclusion to the argument that NYT coverage is automatically notable is that we should build a bot to comb the NYT and generate new articles. Similar arguments are made by conflating National Geographic with National Geographic Traveler. Of course a mayor in a town of less than 100,000 population gets press coverage. It doesn't make them worthy of an encyclopedia article. Rhadow (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
☖ 01:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Hello MJL -- And we went through the same argument over lists of mayors from towns in New Jersey, many of whom are elected by the public as councilmen, and elected mayor by their fellow councilmen. I agree that the standards for mayors need to be reexamined. Rhadow (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, statewide coverage in the
WP:BASIC deprecates statewide or regional sources. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
You make an excellent argument,
☖ 01:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I am certainly open to the possibility this article be merged to something akin to
☖ 14:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
...And I realized that I in fact did not say that said something else in my response to
☖ 14:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
And real quickly, noting the since I have posted this article to AfD, it is leagues above where it used to be in terms of tone. My choice of forum was based off my initial belief that it is beyond repair, but I am not so sure about that thanks to editors like yourself who have brought it to a halfway point of sorts.–
☖ 14:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I've amended my !vote to support a Merge result.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I'm not a fan of it, we seem to keep bios of everyone who ever got paid to kick a ball or play a drum outside of their own garage, so a serially-elected mayor of a sizable city ought to be a no-brainer by comparison. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even if WP:ADVOCACY was a problem here, that's nothing a good editor couldn't fix. Also, there is no population limit for mayors, per GNG. She has the sources and citations for a keep.Scanlan (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per extensive discussion with
    ☖ 04:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 14:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete Mayors do not inherently meet
    WP:NPOL. Her claim to being "the youngest serving female mayor in the United States for a city the size of New Britain" has too many qualifications attached (youngest and serving and female and for a city X size) to be inherently notable. Some sources, like newsmax.com, are of questionable reliability. Other coverage lacks biographical depth. Chetsford (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erin_Stewart&oldid=1108835618"