Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Cohen

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. At no point in this discussion have sources been presented that give the subject notability, outside of routine coverage in a limited geographical area. Bearcat, and IamNotU are (as far as I can tell) 100% correct on their interpretation of those policies and their application to WP:NPOL; and perhaps the best way to illustrate this is from WP:GEOSCOPE "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." (While this is obviously not an all encompassing guideline, it does provide some pretext for what we should be seeing in the coverage of this subject.) Therefore, the article's subject is found to lack the required notability for inclusion at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Linda Cohen

Linda Cohen (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)

Local politician who fails WP:NPOL. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep There's a lot more written about her that's not referenced. Keep it with a banner. VanEman (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep (creator). I've added a second source that is reliable and independent of the subject as well as expanded the article. This article passes WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."--TM 10:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If a politician hasn't gotten an automatic WP:NPOL pass by virtue of her role, then it takes a lot more than just two articles in the local media to get her over WP:GNG. All local politicians always garner coverage in their local media, so such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL, no in-depth coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you look at the articles? There are two in-depth articles on Cohen. One even goes so far as to tell her life story.--TM 02:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Two in-depth articles in her local media doesn't cut it. That's WP:ROUTINE coverage of the type that all politicians at this level of office always get. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it better than I did! AusLondonder (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• In a place with a population of just 25K, neither being a city councillor nor even being the mayor constitutes an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — at this level of government the media coverage has to nationalize to make them appropriate for inclusion. But all of the citations here are to local media — which, as noted above, falls under WP:ROUTINE as all local politicians will garner local coverage. Which means that nothing written or sourced here demonstrates a reason why anybody not in her own local area would need to read an article about her. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Article clearly passes WP:GNG with multiple, independent, reliable sources. One of the sources is a long form biographical piece from the state's largest newspaper. There is nothing routine about that. In fact, if you re-read routine, you will see that it clearly does not apply to these sources.--TM 11:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There is not a single city councillor on the planet for whom you couldn't find two articles about them in the local newspaper — such coverage is WP:ROUTINE, because local media covering local politics is entirely within the realm of the normal and expected. If a place is not large enough to get its municipal council politicians over WP:NPOL on size of the city grounds, then media coverage only gets them over the WP:GNG bar if it demonstrates that they're significantly more notable than the norm, by expanding significantly outside the bounds of the purely local. If there were 30 or 40 distinct citations to the local newspaper, then there might be a stronger case that local coverage was enough because the volume of it was getting disproportionately large — but two pieces in the local newspaper isn't even slightly out of the realm of the ordinary level of coverage that all mayors of small towns always get. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

That's certainly a fine opinion for one to have, but it is in no way grounded in Wikipedia policy. Your bias against statewide newspaper coverage is baffling. The coverage is quite in-depth and from a variety of sources. Cohen is not just mentioned in the articles, but the articles are in fact about Cohen herself. In fact, if you tried to find such articles on South Portland's current mayor, which I have, you would not be able to find anything even close to the type of biographical coverage that Linda Cohen has received. The Portland Press Herald article is more in-depth than most city councilors receive, so your hyperbole is quite unwarranted.--TM 12:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a bias against "statewide newspaper coverage" — the fact that the local newspaper in her own local area happens to have statewide distribution doesn't constitute statewide coverage for Wikipedia's purposes. Even The New York Times, which has national distribution, does not automatically confer "national coverage" status on a topic of purely local interest which it's covering in a purely local context — a chip stand in Williamsburg does not get over GNG just because it got a restaurant review in the local section of the NYT; a non-winning candidate for New York City Council does not get over GNG just because the routine local coverage of the election happens to be in the NYT rather than the Palookaville Pennysaver. Where the coverage is coming from has to expand away from local to count as extralocal coverage, not the distribution range of the local media outlet. And there's no "hyperbole" involved here, either — local media cover local politics. That's their job. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as simply not yet compelling for obvious signs with the applicable notability and also better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - coverage does not extend beyond WP:ROUTINE, other than that, does not pass WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone read WP:ROUTINE? It says absolutely nothing about local news coverage. The sources of this article include a feature length, long form article written by a statewide newspaper and an interview with a regional weekly newspaper, on top of coverage of her actions as city clerk of the largest city in the state and during her time as mayor, when the city council made national headlines. WP:ROUTINE includes "coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" as well as "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs". There is nothing of that sort in this article. If you have a bias against small city politicians having an article on Wikipedia, that's fine, but don't try to cite Wikipedia's notability guidelines to confirm your bias.--TM 18:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:ROUTINE covers all forms of "media coverage that is to be expected in this context". Yes, it lists wedding announcements and obituaries as examples of what routine coverage entails — but examples do not limit a rule as being applicable only to those specific examples, and irrelevant to anything not explicitly named as an example. Routine coverage does also include purely local coverage of local municipal politics, purely local coverage of the local furniture store's fifth anniversary blowout sale, purely local coverage of local restaurants, purely local coverage of an unsigned local band playing their local watering hole, and on and so forth. If a person or thing doesn't have a strong claim to passing Wikipedia's subject-specific inclusion standards for their field of activity, then to get a WP:GNG pass the level and range of media coverage has to go significantly above and beyond the realm of the merely expected. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL and Notability. — Music1201 ^talk 03:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep WP:ROUTINE unambiguously states that its basis is WP:NOTNEWS. A biographical article is not news, whether or not it is in a newspaper. The first two references are not news, the last three are. Without trying hard, I found a source from the Bangor Daily News (over 100 miles away) covering the mayoral race, so it has at least some coverage at a more regional level. If the standard to pass WP:NPOL/WP:GNG, as Bearcat states, is high volume of local coverage, I was able to find way more than 30-40 local news articles mentioning Linda Cohen, probably closer to a hundred, although I stopped counting. The lack of x number of citations in the article is completely irrelevant to notability. Sure I'd like more sources, but I'm not comfortable deleting at this time. -- RM 19:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

  It appears that in Maine the big newspapers have very wide, effectively state-wide, coverage areas. A local politician gets the level of coverage that in most states a higher level politician may get. That makes them notable at a relatively lower political level, because the amount and geographical spread of coverage increases proportionally. A cursory look at the news coverage supports this. It also appears that the decisions that South Portland makes have statewide ramifications, particularly the local oil policies, since it is an important port. -- RM 20:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep WP:ROUTINE is irrelevant here, since the policy refers only to announcements of events. Linda Cohen has significant statewide coverage. The article easily passes WP:BASIC. As RM noted, there are even more sources not included in the article.Michiquito (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete The articles are local to her, we virtually never let people be deemed to pass GNG for articles on them in their own local press.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete, lacks non-routine significant coverage. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Coverage is routine and local -- fails WP:POLITICIAN, insufficient for WP:GNG. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete As per others. The few articles that are sourced in the article are routine and local. It would require far more sources than the page currently has for it to pass relevant policies. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 04:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete, we have a local politician, a former major, who quite understandably got some local coverage. Per standard practice, this is not sufficient to keep the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not enough agreement to close Mr. Guye (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this was delisted a second time. It seems obvious that there is no consensus.--TM 15:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Certainly there has been coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, perhaps with state-wide distribution. It may have been in depth - but it has not been significant. There is nothing historical. Wikipedia is the history book for the future, being written as it unfolds. What is the big picture here? Is there anything about Cohen that makes her clearly notable, in comparison with other former mayors of South Portland? Should we expect that a book-length biography will be written about her? Is there something that leads us to think that in the future, she "will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians"? Is there some scandal or achievement that garnered nation-wide attention?

The Portland Press Herald article goes into great detail about her life, but it doesn't claim or support anything outstanding or exceptionally notable about her; it's more of a "who is the new mayor?" human-interest article. In fact, that article says that for most of her 21-year career as a city clerk, nobody noticed her! And the 2010 piece says "“For nearly a decade, Linda has been the person behind the curtain, making sure that the clerk’s office was an open and welcoming place for the public". This is not the hallmark of a major political figure of historical importance, which is the notability bar for a local politician. The mayor of New York City can generally get over that bar easily; the mayor of South Portland, not so much.

Coverage in multiple reliable sources is the minimum requirement for an article, not an automatic justification. In the case of politicians, there are more specific guidelines about what is significant. It's not only about the number of words in the piece, or the number of times something they've done has been reported, or how many people read it - what matters is the significance that the coverage itself attaches to its subject; whether it claims that it's something truly out of the ordinary. Cohen is obviously a highly competent, dedicated, and effective politician of great integrity, and South Portland is lucky to have her. Personally I think it's all those "troops on the ground" who really make a difference in the world, and it's really unfortunate that Wikipedia's "notability" guidelines exclude them from being recognized for it as individuals. I hope that changes someday. But that's the way it is, at the moment. -- IamNotU (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment So your position is that we should ignore WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Where are all of these requirements of which you speak? That she be a major political figure of historical importance? She a book length biography be written about her? The opinions expressed in favor of deletion are not based on Wikipedia policies, but on personal editing biases. There only requirement for a biography to be on Wikipedia is what you admitted this article had: multiple, reliable independent sources. You even qualified that they are of statewide significance. It's stunning to me that some of my fellow editors wish to WP:IGNOREALLRULES to delete a biography that even some of them admit passes the notability guidelines. Smells like WP:IDONLIKEIT to me.--TM 10:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I seriously do not appreciate the accusations of "personal bias". We are here to discuss the issue, not take potshots at other editors. I did not say they were requirements, they are called standards in the guidelines. There are very few strict rules either for or against notability, but many methods by which to make a judgement call, eg. WP:POLITICIAN:

1. "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office..." or,
2. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. [A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.]"
3. "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 primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

Cohen has only the one feature article, so doesn't meet #2. She can be included under #3, but it doesn't mean she should be, without some credible argument as to why we should ignore #1 and #2. WP:GNG says that it "creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included". Otherwise, there would be no point in having WP:POLITICIAN at all.

The other is from WP:ANYBIO, which I think gives an indication about what "notability" should mean: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Generally, a person who is 'part of the enduring historical record' will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians."

One must consider the spirit of the guidelines, what they are trying to convey, not merely "the letter of the law". The mayor of a small city is specifically not entitled to an article purely by reason of their office. Therefore they should demonstrate a level of notability that distinguishes them from previous mayors, and the many thousands of other mayors, not only in America, but around the world. The coverage should be beyond what they might customarily receive, purely by reason of their office, in their city. I think it's not reasonable to conclude from the fact that the Herald published a feature on Cohen's personal background, while they didn't (yet?) do so for the current mayor, that Cohen is markedly more notable. A book-length biography is an illustration of something that would tend to indicate that, though it's not the only thing. It is simply not true that the "only requirement for a biography to be on Wikipedia is multiple, reliable independent sources." That misses the word significant, which is the crux. What is considered significant has different levels in different situations. A published in-depth biography of an actor in some circumstances is considered "trivial", because it's done customarily. I submit that a collection of articles that would customarily be written about a small city mayor, plus a single feature article mainly covering an incoming mayor's background and life growing up in their city, but not an in-depth analysis of an acclaimed political life and accomplishments that might be expected to become "part of the enduring historical record", does not meet the bar. You are welcome to disagree with me. You are not welcome to cast aspersions on my personal integrity as an editor! -- IamNotU (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete She fails WP:POLITICIAN as the mayor of a small town of 25,000, and a few local newspaper profiles, even if nicely written, do not overcome that, and do not meet WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a directory of every small town politician on this planet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Delete As above - a not notable local politician Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I've updated the article to reflect the fact that Cohen was not "elected" as mayor, but appointed by a vote of her fellow council members. The city government of South Portland uses the council-manager form, in which the position of mayor is "a largely ceremonial title", the chairperson of the council, which rotates among council members every year. I also included the information about Cohen's day job as the branch manager of a local bank, during her term as mayor; the daily operations and executive power of the city's government are the responsibility of the city manager. Those who argued to "keep" - VanEman, TM (creator), RM, and Michiquito - were you aware of this?

  Whatever we may think about the position is irrelevant. Whether appointed or elected, serious or ceremonial, this does not affect notability. If anything, the relative "unimportance" of the position should correspond to lesser coverage, but this is not the case. -- RM 11:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. In reply, I would say that a person does not achieve notability as an individual, due to media coverage, simply because they are a spokesperson for an organization and it is their job to write press releases and speak to the media. The position of "mayor" in South Portland is basically a part-time city councilor, with no executive power, who has been appointed the designated spokesperson for the city council for that year; rather than an elected mayor directly involved in the daily operations of the city's government. I felt that the article may have been unintentionally misleading in that respect. It is not irrelevant to Wikipedia editors trying to assess whether news stories indicate enduring notability of an individual, versus an organization on whose behalf she is speaking. In other words, to what extent is the coverage about the activities of Linda Cohen, rather than the communications of the South Portland city council? -- IamNotU (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If the South Portland city council isn't mentioned or the focus, then they are not notable to the audience. There are plenty of figureheads that are more notable than the thing they represent. Notability and importance are not the same thing. Example: A one year manager of a professional sports team might have an article, but the owner of the team might not, even if the manager is just a puppet. -- RM 00:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I also want to be clear that I don't think the sources are enough to meet WP:GNG / WP:BASIC. The claim of notability seems to be based almost entirely on a single feature article in a greater Portland newspaper, which is essentially a human interest story about someone from humble beginnings who has just achieved the title of "mayor" of South Portland. The rest are basically routine coverage of local community stories or news events such as "Portland City Clerk to resign" - which would be expected to include some biographical information about the clerk, but doesn't establish enduring notability. I would also point out that all other politicians in Category:Mayors of South Portland, Maine were at some other point also elected to either state or national governments. -- IamNotU (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I've seen two disturbing trends here at AfD: first, to construe notability guidelines very narrowly, especially POLITICIAN, and secondly, biting of newbies. I'm not taking a stance either way, but I'd appreciate more civil writing here. Thank you. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bearian: The creator of the article has 10 years of editing history. Who's the newbie? AusLondonder (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

AusLondonder Oh, I should be sorry then, it was my error. I though the creator was a newbie, from the way it -- and this thread -- was written. Never mind. Delete, then, per growing consensus to enforce the guideline strictly. Bearian (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. FWIW, I still think we construe our guidelines a bit strictly nowadays, but I also understand how consensus changes. Bearian (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Personally, I consider myself an inclusionist. This would be a borderline delete case for me, but I'm relying on WP:NPOL. And to be honest, all AfD's are rather 'bitey', which is a shame for the project. AusLondonder (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bearian:, @AusLondonder:, actually I'm the newbie, as far as AfD... Over the past few weeks I've immersed myself in the twisty maze of WP:THISEXPLAINSEVERYTHINGEXCEPTFORTHATOTHERTHING. It's interesting to try to figure out how it all works, but also... disturbing. Not sure if I'll stick around. I'd say in general I'm an inclusionist but consistency is important, which is not so easy given that the guidelines often seem contradictory. Also rampant COI editing and promotion (not that that's happening here) make it more difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to borderline cases. I hope that spam doesn't do to Wikipedia what it did to Usenet way back when... I did find TM's comment rather 'bitey'. I tried to respond in a firm but civil way, not sure how it came across. Thanks, AusLondonder, for your encouragement. I apologize if I've been talking too much in this discussion, I do that sometimes - see below :-) -- IamNotU (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - It was noted above that "One of the sources is a long form biographical piece from the state's largest newspaper. There is nothing routine about that." But in fact it seems quite routine for Portland Press Herald staff writer Kelly Bouchard to write such background articles on the occasion of the changing-of-the-mayor, here's this year's: [1], and for other members of the South Portland city council: [2]. Bouchard often writes about South Portland local news, such as this story about Knightville Street in South Portland being changed back from a one-way to a two-way street again. That story was also reported by WCSH Portland news, which broadcasts to most of Maine and parts of New Hampshire. The same "100 miles away" Bangor Daily News also reported on traffic issues on Knightville Street - as with the Cohen story, BDN pulls stories from South Portland local weekly The Forecaster into its online news portal. The point is that a story appearing in these "statewide" media gives no evidence at all that it's anything other than routine local news coverage or a community human interest piece.

The concept that "Wikipedia properly considers the longterm historical notability of persons and events" was added to Wikipedia policy by Jimmy Wales in 2007, and it was refined into "Wikipedia is not a newspaper", part of the first pillar of Wikipedia. It's a policy, which has much more weight than guidelines, which are meant to support the editorial judgement that goes into case-by-case decisions and consensus about the suitability of particular articles for an encyclopedia. Many people argue that as long as there are two newspaper articles with more than a trivial mention of a person, WP:GNG and WP:BASIC have been met, and a Wikipedia biography article must not be deleted. But there is a lot more to it than simply counting column inches. Current consensus is that routine news coverage of local politicians is generally not sufficient to establish enduring notability and justify a dedicated article. It's perfectly acceptable to add information about local politicians to other relevant articles, as long as it's given due weight. For example I doubt that a well-written article on the history of the South Portland city council would encounter problems with notability, though information about Cohen's school record or family finances would not be appropriate.

No one is saying that Linda Cohen is not at all notable, and it may be that at some point she will meet the bar for a standalone article, or the bar will be lowered. As an alternative to deletion, I would also support a blank-and-redirect to South Portland, Maine#Government and politics, which would retain the edit history and a record of the sources for future use. -- IamNotU (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is very well reasoned, but it rests on the false assumption that WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. It does not. It's a biography, not an event. The argument that all the newspaper coverage is local is interesting, but it leads the unreasonable conclusion that any politician in the state of Maine requires significant coverage outside the state. No policy supports this as a rule. That BDN or WCSH considers the local content important for the state audiences means that hard rejections on locality of sources are unfounded. We have to look elsewhere, such as the volume of coverage, to get a better sense of the notability of the subject. -- RM 00:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: She's sort of an "on the line" case, but I read NPOL saying "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." This doesn't say "national" press coverage; Portland is Maine's largest city, it is a regional center, and if we want to dismiss it as "merely local," we really could apply that reasoning to the entire state, or heck, all of New England, other than Massachusetts. Further, the tar sands issue is of national significance and a municipality considering banning their transport is notable in itself. Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: She wasn't Mayor of Portland, Maine but South Portland, Maine. AusLondonder (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Thanks for presenting some rational arguments beyond "passes/fails WP:GNG". It's difficult though, to see Cohen as a major political figure even within the greater Portland area. I don't see anything that distinguishes her three-year career as a minor city councilor from multitudes of others. Compare her to the mayor of Portland for example. The South Portland (not Portland) local ordinance about potential future tar sands exports wasn't an initiative of Cohen; on the contrary, about the original proposal, "The first to voice opposition to the ordinance was Councilor Linda Cohen, who reiterated the argument by marine businesses and oil and gas interests that the restrictions would have the unintended effect of shutting down companies that ship and handle a wide variety of oil and gas products that are bought and sold all over northern New England."[3] “I don’t think I want tar sands in South Portland, but this ordinance just goes way too far,” Councilor Linda Cohen said. “It is going to have unintended consequences that will be devastating to the city and will last a long long time.”[4] Eventually she supported a modified version, the passage of which was a newsworthy event and a commendable statement on the environment. But that by no means indicates that she and her fellow councilors ought to be considered notable politicians. That is the very essence of the "not a newspaper" policy.

For a politician to have a dedicated article requires that they have a political career of enduring notability (originally written as "longterm historical notability" by Jimmy Wales) so that an encyclopedic article can be written. General consensus has been that coverage of local politicians in local media is not sufficient for notability. There is no coverage of Cohen, as an individual politician, beyond what is routine and expected for South Portland city councilors. Coverage being primarily in the Portland Press Herald and other Portland media doesn't prove that it is "merely local" coverage, but it certainly doesn't prove that it isn't - see the case of the one-way street, above. Guidelines are meant to reflect consensus about best practices, not define them. They must be applied taking into consideration the policies in the "five pillars". Adhering to a literal reading of a guideline, when consensus and common sense would seem to dictate otherwise, is I think harmful to the credibility of Wikipedia if it results in an article that is not encyclopedic. -- IamNotU (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales' original "longterm historical notability" would require us to wait X years to see if historical publications (not modern biographies, newspaper articles, etc.) were made that covered the subject. Any sooner would require original research to make that determination. There is good reason the original statement is gone. "enduring notability" fits nicely with the notion that "once notable, always notable". I wouldn't read any more into it than that. If Linda Cohen is determined to be notable as a result of the discussion, then she by definition will have enduring notability. -- RM 00:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: [TL;DR]: Can we actually write an article about Linda Cohen, discussing her notable political achievements? No. Because she doesn't have any. If you think there's some WP:GUIDELINE that says there ought to be an encyclopedia article about her anyway, please use common sense, go hit the edit button, and change the guideline. You're allowed to. [/TL;DR]

I've removed the sentence "During Cohen's time as mayor, she was a proponent of a controversial ordinance that banned tar sands..." since it wasn't supported by the citations. They were written before she had the position of mayor, and say that in fact she sided with the oil companies and opposed the ordinance, only later flipping to vote for a watered-down version.

I've also written a new section covering the ordinance in Portland–Montreal Pipe Line#South Portland Clear Skies Ordinance. This was indeed a big story that received national coverage, such as this article in the LA Times: [5]. Tellingly, that article (and the section I wrote) doesn't mention Cohen, but rather fellow councilor and then-"mayor" Tom Blake, who championed the ordinance. In reviewing the sources, it seems that Cohen, who ran unopposed in ward 4 (population ~5000) for her first time in public office, only a few months earlier, was only peripherally involved.

Apart from her previous job as city clerk, I am honestly unable to find anything whatsoever that distinguishes Linda Cohen from any other South Portland city councilor, or councilor of any other small city, or indicates that she is a major political figure (even locally) or a notable politician, or has any notable political achievements. Three of the seven current city councilors have had the same type of background article about them in the Portland Press Herald, and five of them have served as honorary "mayor". Linda, if you (or your great-great-grandchildren) are reading this, I think you are an upstanding and outstanding citizen, and an amazing person. The job of city councilor is really important, if not glamorous. Not everyone can be written about in Wikipedia, and that's ok. What good is "notability" anyway? What matters is that you care about people, and you try to help them...

In summary, the arguments so far to keep the article are extremely weak:

• That anything written about in the Portland Press Herald or Bangor Daily News is inherently of regional or statewide importance.
• That dozens of articles mentioning her in a local context in Portland news media, are sufficient to show notability.
• That being associated with a notable event (the tar sands ordinance) and the related news coverage, confers notability on her, when her involvement was only marginal.
• That news coverage quoting someone whose job it is to speak to the media on behalf of their organization, conveys notability on that person.
• That the background article in the Portland Press Herald is something other than routine local coverage regularly afforded to South Portland city councilors.

These arguments have been made by only a few people, most of whom have left the discussion, and one of whom is clearly an alternate account of a proficient editor, created to participate in AfD discussions for 40 minutes. On the other hand there seems to be a near-consensus, and strong arguments, especially from the very experienced editor Bearcat, which solidly refute the above. This discussion has gone on for six weeks now, and it would be nice if it can eventually be closed with a consensus. As Bearcat said, the subject is not even close to being "borderline" for notability. In my opinion it's a textbook case of the type of article that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" and WP:NPOL are intended to prevent, though they may not do a great job of conveying that. -- IamNotU (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There are so many problems with this that I'm not sure where to begin.

• The age of viewpoints is irrelevant. I've been silently following along. There has been no need to weigh in or change my points. Nor is there a need to sway/bias the discussion by trying to expire viewpoints you don't agree with.
• There is no room to minimize the viewpoints of certain contributors over others. That is not in the spirit of the project. Judge the comments on their own merits, there is no reason to demean individuals and the level of experience is completely irrelevant to the strength of the arguments being made. Bearcat's experience does not matter one bit and if a closing admin considers that, they should be ashamed of themselves for accepting a logical fallacy. There are other forums to deal with sockpuppets, and even if there is one, you should still judge the comments on their own merits.
• WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because Linda Cohen is not an event nor is she notable for an event. None of the four primary points apply here. This is related to the poor arguments that cite WP:ROUTINE, already mentioned above.
• During this discussion some references have been found to be lacking while others have been introduced. I get the sense that the quality of references found has only gotten better, not worse. Others disagree. Fine.
• I have yet to see any adequate argument for why such a supposed completely non-notable, unimportant, non-elected local politician could have so much more coverage relative to others with more important status. The assertion does not match the evidence. Time and again I've heard arguments to delete a BIO because "if so and so were notable, there would be a lot more coverage". If that argument is such a strongly compelling reason to delete, then meeting it should be a strong reason to keep. However, when a relatively large volume of coverage is found, some other excuse is made to delete instead. I see a bias against local politicians, but it is not policy that all local politicians are non-notable. Most of the "delete" rationales primarily cite the locality. So great, there is an overwhelming number of weak arguments for deletion under the mistaken notion a subject is automatically non-notable by being local.
• I don't believe the evidence is overwhelming in either direction. It's a borderline case, and I won't argue that it isn't. I've seen a lot of citations of policies that don't apply, and the case for deletion is not nearly is strong as suggested.

-- RM 22:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note More coverage of her career exists: Dateline 5 March 2004, Portland Press Herald: "Portland City Clerk [Linda Cohen] stunned officials in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., this week when she turned down the city clerk's position there, which pays $88,200 a year...."E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Dateline 13 March 2006, Pres Herald: "Clerk work suits the Cohens ; April Cohen is following her mother's public service lead..."E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Leaning towards Keep I ran a proquest new archive search on Cohen. There are many articles on her and her career, including 24 on her role in the Peaks Island, Maine secession debate (it's a summer community in Casco Bay, with an upscale population that flies in from across the U.S.)

The Press Herald has followed her career closely, Dateline 22 July 2002, Press Herald: "Clerk takes on task of preserving Portland's past, page by page ; Age-old vital records are worth protecting, and City Clerk Linda Cohen vows to raise the funds to do so..."

Dateline 10 July 2014: "South Portland council backs tar sands ban... "I don't want tar sands in South Portland... said Councilor Linda Cohen." Lots more of this sort of story.

She was City Clerk of first South Portland, then of Portland, and the clerk does appear to do more than hand out dog licensees, stories like this: Dateline: 12 February 2002: "City Clerk Linda Cohen is seeking the City Council's permission to... eliminate two polling places in Portland to save money and streamline..."

So, overall, it is a borderline case. Maine/Portland are not large, I think the whole state has 2 member of congress (think Dakota, but with lobsters) And, only one large newspaper.

But there is coverage in the other Maine dailies [6].

Just occurred to me to look at Maine Public radio, it covers the state and it has covered Cohen's activities at least once [7]. So, overall, leaning towards keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Here: [8] is a link to a non password protected news search on her, showing coverage of her involvelemt in sundry issues in a variety of Maine media. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the detailed search for sources - there are in fact many news stories which mention Cohen. But again this seems to be based on the idea that finding many mentions of a small-city councilor or city clerk in their local media, covering them carrying out their jobs in a routine way, justifies them being "memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry" (Jimmy Wales). If that were true, then virtually every city councilor of every city in the world would have an article.

Minor local politicians don't get an article, just for being elected and/or doing their job competently. News coverage that doesn't indicate anything more than that - even if it's extensive - is not a valid source for notability on Wikipedia. Can you point to anything about Cohen that could be considered a notable political achievement? If not, why on earth should there be an encyclopedia article about her? She herself characterizes her major achievement as city councilor, as having worked towards the establishment of a new Municipal Services Facility in South Portland - see the updated article.

Someone turning down a job, or their daughter following in their footsteps, are trivial events, even if they're reported in the newspaper. It doesn't count as significant "coverage of her career" in determining notability. In fact, it indicates that the Portland Press Herald regularly reports routine, local, trivial news event stories.

The fact that certain news media are accessible statewide doesn't prove that every story written in them is of statewide importance, lasting historical significance, or enduring notability - they regularly report on purely local news, routine community issues, and "local-person-wins-award" trivial events. Common sense has to be used, to determine which is which. The example given of "coverage in other Maine dailies" is in fact copied from South Portland / Cape Elizabeth local weekly The Forecaster to BDN's online news portal, the original is here: [9]. The coverage on the Maine public radio site quotes her in association with the Clear Skies Ordinance, which gained national coverage, but she was only marginally involved as one of several councilors who voted (first against, then for) it. Every person associated with a notable event does not automatically qualify for a biography in an encyclopedia. Even participating in what was called "a historical vote", does not make a person notable, nor Cohen a notable politician. Again, she specifically distanced herself from involvement with the issue, see the article. Widespread media coverage of it does not add to evidence of her being a notable politician.

The Peaks Island Wikipedia article makes no mention of Cohen having played any significant role. The news articles I can see show her carrying out routine job duties as city clerk, such as swearing in members of the council, and acting as media spokesperson on behalf of the Portland city government. If it's part of your job to talk to the media, then media coverage quoting you doesn't make you a notable person, who should have their childhood documented in the history books.

Newspaper coverage of her involvement in "sundry issues" as a minor city councilor, is no evidence of her being a major political figure or politician of enduring historical notability, with multiple significant or notable political achievements, deserving of an encyclopedia article. -- IamNotU (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I go through the politician AFDs from time to time, and my experience seems to have been been different from yours. When I have searched news archives for small city polliticians brought to AFD, I have not routinely found this extent of coverage. That's what makes me lean towards keep. As for Peaks Island, I did not go read that article because the question here, as always, is: do sources exist, not: are they already on the page. Like most articles at AFD, this one can use improvement, better linkage. But Just to check myself, I just searched "Peaks Island" + "Linda Cohen" and got 194 hits: [[10]] the first page appears to be reliable sources. I'm still leaning keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Counting WP:GOOGLEHITS is usually not very useful. Do the sources indicate that she had a significant involvement with the story? I'm not seeing that. I looked through several pages of the search results, many are unrelated/random hits, the rest seem to be from Cohen reporting on vote statistics and so on, as a spokesperson. Nothing at all indicates notability for Cohen as an individual. They may be reliable sources for facts, but the facts, and the coverage, don't support notability in any way. Some people have made arguments based on the quantity of coverage mentioning her, without considering its quality. If the Portland Press Herald has the staff resources to write many articles about minor local community issues, it doesn't make the issues any more significant or notable. It doesn't, as one person argued, push a minor city councilor up to the level of a state representative, in terms of notability.

Arguments like these skirt the issue: can anyone point to any achievement by Cohen, that could reasonably be considered notable? The couple of local sources that have covered her political career per se, indicate that she simply doesn't have any: [11] In that case, it's common sense that there should not be an encyclopedia article about her. -- IamNotU (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading your link from The Forecaster. It has this to say about her achievements in her first term as Mayor: "Cohen was elected in 2011 on a campaign promise to work toward bringing a new Municipal Services Facility to the city. The groundbreaking for the new 70,000-square-foot facility, off Highland Avenue, took place in August and the first phase is slated to be completed in December... Cohen is also passionate about the environmentally sustainable direction the city is moving in and said she wants to continue pushing the city in that direction. One of her goals is to create the means to provide more solar energy to more residents. The city is on track to take the first substantial steps toward this measure, having put out a bid in early September to install solar infrastructure at 10 municipal sites, including the capped landfill next to the new Municipal Services Facility..." Followed by copy on steps she has taken towards alleviating traffic congestion on a particular route. To me, that sounds like news coverage of the kind of achievement mayors have.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

First term as city councilor. South Portland doesn't have an actual mayor, it's a glorified term used for the chairperson of the council and their media spokesperson; a job that's rotated among the councilors every year. It doesn't confer any greater power than any of the other councilors, and you can find exactly the same type of media coverage of any of them, such as current "mayor" Tom Blake. Portland has an elected, full-time mayor - he has a Wikipedia article. Cohen is a bank manager, who gets about $8 a day for her city council work. It has to be put into perspective. I'm sure whatever her contributions to the Municipal Services Facility project were valuable, but the main responsibility for it, and the rest of the city's 30-million dollar budget, goes to full-time city manager since 2007, James Gailey, who does the bulk of the job that is usually associated with the term "mayor".

But putting that aside... helping to shepherd the construction of a new municipal building, or plans to bring more solar energy infrastructure to the city, or alleviate traffic congestion - these are exactly the type of routine local things that don't result in an Wikipedia biography for a bona fide mayor, let alone a part-time city councilor of three years, or a city clerk with "media liason" in her job description! That Forecaster article is a fairly complete account of Cohen's career, and gives a picture of all that could be written about her in an article. Can you honestly say it looks like something that should be included in an encyclopedia? One that has a general editorial consensus, that a politician must have a record of lasting historical notability, which is not achieved through local media coverage of municipal politics? Her work may make her notable in South Portland, and her name at least recognized in the greater Portland area. But this is not the Wikipedia of Portland... -- IamNotU (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite comfortable with small articles of notable subjects. If Linda Cohen is notable and the Forecaster article contains a complete account, then our work will be very easy. That some people don't like small articles is their problem. Wikipedia is not paper. It is not constrained by size requirements (both large or small). I should note that lasting historical significance applies to events. This is a biography. -- RM 00:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

She's not notable - not even close. A local politician being notable in their home town, for their involvement in routine local events, or as government spokesperson, doesn't translate into being notable to "the world at large" for Wikipedia's purposes. That's the point. The article's size doesn't matter; the content does. The concept of enduring notability also applies to biographies, it's part of the first pillar of Wikipedia, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" - the policy that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events". I don't think that can simply be dismissed.

The pressing question seems to be about "localness", and the significance of municipal politics to "the world at large". In general, can a small-city councilor be considered "notable" to Wikipedia's standards, solely on the basis of being elected and doing their job competently, as covered in a local context by newspapers? Does a brief political record as a city councilor, consisting of work such as helping with planning for a new municipal building, or addressing traffic congestion, plus previous employment as a city clerk, adequately meet the standards of notability expected for a Wikipedia article, taking into consideration the spirit of its policies about what it means to be an encyclopedia?

The question must come up all the time, with regard to "local celebrities" and so on, but it's difficult to find specifics in the guidelines. WP:NOTE and WP:BIO / WP:NPOL don't specify anything about the localness of coverage. WP:EVENT has extensive language about localness, but I'm having trouble countering Ram-Man and others' continuing insistence that there are no localness stipulations for biographies or general notability. Again, it would seem to be common sense that someone whose claim to notability depends entirely on being involved with multiple things that are non-notable, as per WP:EVENTCRITERIA, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE, and WP:ROUTINE, is not in fact notable, despite extensive local news reports about those things, over a period of time. A Wikpedia biography article should be able to discuss at least one notable event or achievement that the person has been involved with! Granting notability to a person based on a count of reliable sources, but then having nothing particularly significant or notable to say about them, is beyond common sense - though one could argue that it's supported by the guidelines. @Bearcat: perhaps you have a suggestion? -- IamNotU (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

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.