Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lacey Beaty

Lacey Beaty

[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!

Lacey Beaty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

First female mayor should be notable, but coverage is all routine happenings. Beaverton is a mid-size town, not notable on a national scale. The bit about the former mayor being arrested for being a pedophile isn't particularly helpful. Would be a stronger keep if she was featured in a large newspaper or the like, rather than just reporting on what she's done for the city. Oaktree b (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep: I agree that there were significant flaws in the way in which the article was originally presented. I appreciate Oaktree b's recommendations about the reference to the former mayor and the extensive information about what she has done for the city. I have made edits accordingly. However, I disagree that Beaty does not meet the notability threshold. While the average mayor of Beaverton, Oregon may not be particularly noteworthy, Beaty is the first woman and youngest mayor in the city's history, as Oaktree b mentioned. Additionally, she has participated in national events, and contributed to national organizations, that I did not include in the article, but they have broadened her notability nonetheless. Even if Beaty wasn't the first female or youngest mayor of the city, it wouldn't be unprecedented for her to have a page; several other current mayors of midsized cities in Oregon have Wikipedia articles (see: Lucy Vinis, Chris Hoy, and Steve Callaway). I appreciate the opportunity to make this article better, but I strongly discourage deletion. Biznaga22 (talk) 8:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

References

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Oregon. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Here's what Wikipedia:Notability (people) says at the very top of the page ("Basic criteria"):

• "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
  • "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."

WP:NPOL is the subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that mentions politicians. Referring to local politicians it says:

• "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."

There's full-length reliable, independent news coverage of this mayor.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Delete: The job of local news is to cover local politicians; it is literally their journalistic duty to report on who was elected mayor of their town. Thus, hyper-local news articles like [6] constitutes what I would consider to be superficial and typical coverage, routine in thousands upon thousands of communities. Without wide coverage, there has to be something that sets her mayoral tenure apart, whether that be a notable policy that generated coverage or a significant position or something like that. The subject has simply not been written about in-depth enough to justify an argument for WP:NPOL#2 and the hyper-local coverage that does exist isn't satisfactory for WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  KATU, which you cite as "hyper-local", is the ABC News affiliate for the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area (population: 2.5 million people - about the size of the Orlando area). The oregonlive.com website is Portland's Oregonian, the second largest newspaper in the Pacific Northwest; it's won 8 Pullitzer Prizes.

  The closing admin will follow the guidance I quoted above in my "keep" comment. They'll look at the articles I cited and decide for themselves.

  -- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  According to its article, KATU-TV is owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which should be taken into consideration when assessing the source. Beccaynr (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Even The Washington Post and The New York Times, two of the country's premier newspapers, provide coverage of local affairs that have little demonstrative notability, so the argument about how many Pulitzer Prizes an outlet has is pretty irrelevant here. Regardless, The Oregonian source that you provided ([7]) is mostly coverage of someone else, with the subject receiving barely a passing mention. Curbon7 (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per Biznaga22 and A. B., subject only to some personal wariness of the long-term maintainability of articles at this level. But I did a ctrl-F on Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) to make sure that nothing had changed since my last checkin, and have confirmed neither of these guidelines excludes local coverage. Nor should they: such an exclusion would have the effect of backdooring notability into a test of the significance of the article subject, which is not and never has been the standard. Full-length profiles are not, in general, examples of WP:ROUTINE coverage.
  The fundamental question in notability is: is there an adequate quantity of suitable source material for an article? I think the sources cited in the above discussion make it clear that there is. As to the reliability of local sources, I think they meet the crucial threshold of being sources of the kind that experts in the field would rely on. I am no expert on Oregon municipal politics, but I cannot imagine that any expert in that field would prefer the NYT (for example) to a local source. As a character in my favorite forgotten 1990s drama stated, the paper of record somehow invariably manages to get some important detail wrong. And while Sinclair affiliation is something to keep an eye on, in my own limited experience elsewhere Sinclair stations tend to play local politics pretty straight. In sum, as there is adequate material to build an article from, and nothing here appears to bump up against the guardrails of WP:NOT or WP:BLP, there is no basis for deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Delete and easily and strongly so - mayors are not inherently notable and she has not received any non-local press. The "national" references aren't really national references, they're just conferences or development programmes she attended. The fact other mayors have articles isn't proof of anything and there's at least one of those articles which also doesn't pass notability standards. And it's absolutely WP:ROUTINE for a mayor to have a feature article printed in a local newspaper - that's the point of local newspapers! There's nothing here showing she's a notable politician at all outside the city she's in charge of. (If there's a list of mayors of Beaverton, that would be a valid redirect target.)

SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• What is routine coverage? WP:SBST, a subsection of our main notability guideline, says this:

  • "For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage."

  WP:SIGCOV (a.k.a. WP:GNG, gives the rationale, which I believe clinches the argument for this article:

  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

  This definitely applies to this mayor -- there is substantial independent coverage of her in multiple reliable sources to support this article.

  WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (events). Mayor Beatty is not an event.

  Wikipedia:Notability (people) is instead the applicable guideline. Here's what the guideline says at the very top ("Basic criteria"):

  • "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
    • "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."

  WP:NPOL is the subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that mentions politicians. Referring to local politicians it says:

  • "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."

  The article cites full-length reliable, independent news coverage of this mayor.

  These are our guidelines and they're what the closing admin will use to decide this case.

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting although I see a slight edge to those advocating Keeping this article. But it seems to rest on differing interpretations of Notability and Routine and how they apply to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia now has more than its share of "the first X to be Y" type of articles, so piling-on makes it seem more like intereating trivia rather than notable fact. The office is not inherently notable, so there isn't really much justification. 128.252.154.9 (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Delete "first X to be Y" doesn't automatically constitute notability. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE as well, the office itself also lacks notability. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)