Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Di Thorley

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Di Thorley

[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)

Simply being mayor does not guarantee notability. She does not meet WP:NPOL, a small amount of coverage eg her commenting on water issues but insufficient WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator is correct that being mayor doesn't guarantee notability, but I think there's just about enough SIGCOV. She's continued to get quite a bit of coverage as a candidate and potential candidate [1] [2] [3] [4] and she is still regularly profiled in discussions about water in Australia [5] [6] [7]. There's also quite a bit of coverage of her as mayor from the early 2000s on Proquest, but I'm having trouble tracking down whether the Toowoomba Chronicle from that period has been digitised (I expect that it would contain unambiguous SIGCOV if anyone is able to access articles from that period). Overall I think it's enough to constitute the "significant press coverage" that WP:NPOL requires of local political figures. If others disagree, I'm undecided whether the best ATD would be a merge/redirect to 2016 Toowoomba South state by-election or to 2006 Toowoomba Water Futures referendum. MCE89 (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing provided above by MCE89. Passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2025 (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.