Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Daigle (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:57, 24 May 2012

Leslie Daigle

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

Previous discussion was closed as no consensus due to ARS canvassing. Again nominating on the premise that local politicians aren't notable enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Article should also be deleted because it's the subject of a VERY messy content dispute involving a number of edits and almost half the content in the article. Would note that "attack page" (which much this article seems to be) is both a CSD and a reason that several articles related to the 2012 presidential election have been deleted p b p 04:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neutral. My take is that the content dispute is primarily an edit war with an interest in trashing the subject, and I agree with Drmie's characterization of the edits as WP:BLP violations and vandalism. That circumstance ought to be separated from the notability concern, and isn't itself a rationale for deletion. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a consideration...and if you were to take out all the uncontroversial information that hasn't been challenged by someone, the article would be about a paragraph long. When you add in that she doesn't have any coverage in major publications and fails WP:POLITICIAN, you've got a pretty good argument for deletion p b p 04:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a distinction regarding motive for challenging content: that which is challenged in good faith for violating WP:BLP, and that which is challenged where a primary interest is in creating a negative piece. That said, I'm not strong on notability for local assembly members. But I don't think this version can be viewed as particularly controversial [1]; whereas this version, including the poorly sourced 'Being Passed Over for Mayor', speaks for itself [2]. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor politician of no real note. I'm sure every local politician has made some people happy and ticked off others, resulting in local coverage - they don't all need to be in the encyclopedia, and this is a case in point. LadyofShalott 04:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm commenting here to re-emphasize the fact that consensus was reached on a fair version of the page with some Mod input, until a few editors decided to delete sourced information due to being "trivial" to them and in their judgement the sources weren't reliable enough, even though the source is one of the biggest newspapers in the County of Orange. If the article is to be deleted, so be it. Any modicum of fairness has been lost in this page due to corrupt editors like the ones recognized by IP addresses only and also Drmies. --Socalpolitik (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Corrupt editors" is a personal attack, which I suggest you withdraw by striking it out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To California State Assembly elections, 2012#District 74 until the election, restore if elected. Viable discrete search term, and readers deserve to find the election until then. Dru of Id (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Councilpeople aren't automatically notable; there is some positive spin (I toned it down in an earlier version) but it's absolutely minor. Being ninth on the list of influential people of a given community isn't much. That she was rude to a security guard (and/or vice versa) shouldn't make someone notable, and it's pretty obvious that this incident was seized upon to make this a name and shame article. Bottomline, though--not notable either via her job or the GNG. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is a local councilwoman who does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Her candidacy for state assembly is not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG -- if she wins, that's possible a different story. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you get the feeling that this article exists in part to prevent that story from happening? Drmies (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's an attack page, which is a CSD... p b p 16:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if everything in the article was accurate, it's not clear that she's had enough secondary coverage to satisfy WP:GNG (she certainly doesn't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a city council). However, some of the claims are not accurate. Some of the inflated assertions come partly from her Newport Beach government website bio ([3]). If you read any of the councilmember's bios, they are all written like advertisements. Even if we accept the "facts" in her bio as true, there are still inaccurate representations in our article. We say she is a "leading member" of the finance committee. She is (or was) not, she's described as a member (there are 3 members on the committee, one of whom is chair - ([4])) in the bio. We say that thanks to her, the city got a AAA rating (perhaps the most important claim in the article, in my view), and yet the secondary source we cite ([5] doesn't even mention her name, and her bio says, that she "worked with her colleagues" to obtain that rating, not that she obtained it somehow on her own.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN spectacularly. Coverage incidental to the minor office and doesn't quality as significant coverage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Lacks coverage in reliable third-party sources. →B music ian 12:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My original rationale for nominating this article for deletion still stands: Non notable local councillor, who fails WP:POLITICIAN, has only minor coverage and is really a case of WP:BLP1E Valenciano (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 13:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 13:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agreeing with Shalott. This local council member fails WP:POLITICIAN; the position itself is not notable. The position and coverage are local, and much of the coverage regards a non-event, biographically speaking. JFHJr (㊟) 16:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Valenciano. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. - UnbelievableError (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dru of Id. Non-notable candidates in notable elections should be redirected to said elections. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dru of Id and per standard Wikipedia practice for political candidates. Those who are arguing for "delete" should reread WP:POLITICIAN: "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this (notability) guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This rescue tag is highly inappropriate for two reasons: a) the article can't be rescued because it is fully-protected, and b) it was already tagged as rescue once. As such, it basically amounts to yet more canvassing of the ARS p b p 21:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that its currently protected doesn't mean one can't search for sources, and its previous tagging doesn't mean anything either. We have articles that are 9 years old that remain terrible and need improvement. The fact that ARS was alerted to this AfD doesn't mean we come in slobbering to vote keep.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all the delete votes notwithstanding I do not see anyone refuting how the multiple non trivial third party sources in reliable sources that cover the subject in depth are invalidated simply because some dislike this entry. I also note extreme prejudice that most have not seemed to consider any alternative such as a merge nor have they provided any evaluation of the sources.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the subject specific guideline for this sort of thing WP:POLITICIAN. See item 2 Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. This person has gotten ample coverage, as found and linked to in the last AFD and in the article now. Dream Focus 00:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, since when did a few mentions in the local paper become "significant press coverage"? Apparantly never, at least according to the almost a dozen !votes who weren't ARS canvassed. Also, how do you get around the issue of the fact that 70-80% of the article is challenged by one party or another p b p 00:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 *'''Keep''' all the delete votes notwithstanding I do not see anyone refuting how the multiple non trivial third party sources in reliable sources that cover the subject in depth are invalidated simply because some dislike this entry. I also note extreme prejudice that most have not seemed to consider any alternative such as a merge nor have they provided any evaluation of the sources.[[User:Luciferwildcat|LuciferWildCat]] ([[User talk:Luciferwildcat|talk]]) 20:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' Passes the subject specific guideline for this sort of thing [[WP:POLITICIAN]].  See item 2 ''Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.'' This person has gotten ample coverage, as found and linked to in the last AFD and in the article now. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 00:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
+::Um, since when did a few mentions in the local paper become "significant press coverage"?  Apparantly never, at least according to the almost a dozen !votes who ''weren't'' ARS canvassed.  Also, how do you get around the issue of the fact that 70-80% of the article is challenged by one party or another <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">[[User:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00">p</span>]][[User talk:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">b</span>]][[User:Purplebackpack89/C|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">p</span>]]</span> 00:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)