Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Viramontes

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. Local media coverage of the political activity of local politicians is typically discounted at AFD, and most participants have followed that model in forming their consensus to delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Viramontes

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

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

Councilwoman of a city of around 100k. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and with just routine local coverage, doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has significant coverage in the archives of the San Francisco Chronicle. Also this article from the Berkeley Daily Planet seem to put her over the top of the GNG. If not merge to Richmond City Council (Richmond, California) which needs a major overhaul imho. More sources here.Ndołkah (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage from the San Francisco chronicle when you are on the city council of a city in their coverage area is default coverage, it is not enough to show the type of true notability required to create articles on local politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes it is, that's your opinion not the GNGNdołkah (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, JPL is correct. GNG is not just "count up the footnotes and keep anything that surpasses an arbitrary number" — it tests for the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about the subject, the geographic range of how widely she is getting covered, and the context of what she's getting covered for, not just the raw number of footnotes present in the article. Every city councilor everywhere can always show examples of his or her name getting into the local media — so if all a city councillor had to do to exempt themselves from our notability standards for city councillors was show that routine local media coverage existed, then every city councillor everywhere would always get that exemption and the standards themselves would never apply to anybody at all anymore. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why have that standard anyway, every city councilor that meets the GNG is notable period.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Local politician with routine local coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Richmond CA is not large enough to hand all of its city councillors guaranteed inclusion rights just because they exist — to be notable enough for inclusion, Maria Viramontes would have to show either (a) preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her into Wikipedia anyway, or (b) that her depth and range of coverage had expanded far beyond the norm, to the point that she had a credible claim to being much more special than most other city councillors. But neither of those things are in evidence here, and I've already explained above why "she has some coverage in her own city's local media" is not in and of itself a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL. No city councillor in any city ever doesn't have that. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No in-depth significant coverage is reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She does not meet WP:NPOL, and there is not enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. I do find non-local coverage of her policies/opinions (eg in Kentucky, Nevada, Massachusetts, Florida), but only as short quotes in articles about the topic of eg gun violence, casinos, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The coverage is very routine and the subject simply does not meet the bar for inclusion. - Mr X 🖋 12:54, 30 December 2019 (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.