Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Goodman (politician)

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. None of the "keep" opinions propose sources establishing notability. Their argument is based on WP:OUTCOMES, which is not a policy or guideline, but a description of past outcomes. This argument is invalid, because each article is judged on its own merits, and if notability concerns are raised, sources must be submitted. Sandstein 14:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Goodman (politician)[edit]

[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)

Article about a city politician which does meet WP:NPOL I can't find any specific reliable coverage on anything they have done outside of their standard things for a city official. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcmatter: Please be careful not to add biographies to the "bibliographies" delsort. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete City council person is way to low of a political position to pass WP:NPOL and fails the notability guidelines anyway due to the lack of multiple in-depth reliable sources about her. Adamant1 (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frivolous nomination. There are 12 members of the Minneapolis City Council, and nine have pages, so you better get cracking. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas. KidAd (💬💬) 05:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you take that position, which is pretty dubious since "other stuff exists" isn't really a valid argument, there still isn't multiple reliable in-depth sources about her to pass WP:GNG. Since it looks like the only source in the article that is about her specifically is about the price of her house. Id hardly call that worthy of the notability guidelines for politicians. WP:POLOUTCOMES doesn't mean you can ignore the notability guidelines. Adamant1 (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is a member of a major legislative body in a major American city. This is not the Rushville, Ohio Town Council. KidAd (💬💬) 19:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What most importantly in the guidelines, but also in reality, determines what a major legislative body is? Last I checked, WP:POLITICIAN is about the position the person has. WP:DIPLOMAT says "American county-level legislators are considered to be similarly not-inherently notable just like municipal politicians." Most county-level legislators in America are part of a "major legislative body" whatever that means, but even they aren't inherently notable. Minneapolis isn't even the capital of Minnesota either and population wise it's pretty middle of the road. It's definitely not in the same league as say New York, Dallas, or even barely say Nashville. If you want to make the "other stuff exists" argument, only two city Council members in Nashville have Wikipedia articles and both are extremely well sourced with coverage in multiple national news outlets. Especially Megan Barry. Which can't be said for this person. Personally, I'd be willing to say maybe a city council member is worthy of notability in some rare cases, but the sources would have to be on par with Megan Barry's or at least a little less and not run of the mill topics like how they city council voted on something or things related to a single news event like George Floyd's murder. Which is important, but has way less to do with this lady in particular then it does Minneapolis or even the Minneapolis City Council as a group. All the coverage seems to be about the city council as a group. Not about her specifically. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote to merge or redirect to Minneapolis City Council. I think that's the best middle ground between just deleting her article or keeping it when she's not notable enough on her own to warrant an article about her. I'm sure the same can and probably will eventually be done for the other Minneapolis City Council that have articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the op-ed wall of text. The "major legislative body" is the Minneapolis City Council, which has jurisdiction over a city of approximately 382,578 people (at the time of the 2010 census) and is located within the 16th-largest metro area in the United States out of 384. A merge to the City Council page is nonsensical. KidAd (💬💬) 20:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome ;) What's nonsensical about a merge? She still has to pass the notability guidelines whatever your opinion of the legislative body shes a part of is and she doesn't. The only only article specifically about her has to do with her house. There isn't even a bio piece or anything about her work as legislator outside of the George Floyd thing. Which barely even has anything to do with her. Essentially the article is "this lady is a city council member, her house cost less then she thought it would, and the Minneapolis City Council announce the intent to disband the police." BTW, they didn't even vote to do. They just announced the intent to and the articles about it just have her name. Nothing else. Not even her opinion on it. Except the New York Times article, but it only has a single sentence from her. That's the definition of not having in-depth coverage and not being notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable for being a city council member. You've voted, so let the AfD run its course ~~and pipe down~~. KidAd (💬💬) 20:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's circular reasoning and doesn't fit the guidelines. I was just asking. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck a portion of my previous comment. I responded to your sarcastic Your welcome ;) with hostility. But I'm done with this conversation. KidAd (💬💬) 20:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is nowhere near passing GNG. The article does not pass the strong sourcing requirements for local politicians and should be scapped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Members of the Minneapolis City Council are notable. Per Common outcomes for politicians, municipal council members of large cities are generally notable. Also, a Google news search shows numerous articles about her city council actions as the officer of what is probably the most watched major city council in the United States right now. I don't think it's a coincidence that one of the council members who voted against reallocating police funds and against firing the MPD public information officer is now facing a deletion. Not having a Wikipedia article doesn't eliminate her from the City Council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs)

As you have now made a bad faith assumption on my actions I do feel the need to reply to this. I have no political leaning one way or the other on this article and I don't even live in the US. I have read the Common outcomes for politicians and as it says "generally" and "tend" to because this isn't policy, as stated at the top of the page, but a document which has put some of the more common outcomes have been in the past. There is still some expectation that they even partially meet WP:GNG so far there has been no proof that anyone outside of council vote report has ever taken notice of the subject. I think we can all agree she does not meet WP:NPOL as that one is much clearer. Please feel free to discuss the policy and merits of the article but please do not assume political motivations of other editors. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common outcomes are a form of consensus and I can point out recent events that may have influenced you to choose this specific article instead of proposing in a discussion why ALL council members should be deleted.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally of course I think those votes were wise, I also am unconvinced that the defund the police non-sense will in the end be anything more than grandstanding. They have no alternate method, and are only really committed to a year of exploration. At some point the fact their stupid plans will just lead to more crime will force them to abandoned them. I say this writting within 10 blocks of ground zero of the 1967 riot of Detroit, a place that still has not recovered from the stupid actions of people who wanted to be able to carry on the illegal sale of alcohol, including the sale of alcohol to minors, in peace. However I am unconvinced that most of the members of a city council in any city are actually notable. You need coverage, and that is lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep City councillor for a major US city, in particular one that's receiving much press. City council members for major cities are often notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am sorely tempted to close this as "delete" because the arguments to keep are so poor. POLOUTCOMES is not a notability guideline, it is simply a rough heuristic. The relevant guidelines are GNG and NPOL, and no evidence has been provided that the subject of this article meets either. Indeed, local politicians are specifically mentioned in NPOL as requiring substantive coverage to be considered notable, and so arguments that they are notable based on their office carry little weight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would understand a No Consensus close, but there is no consensus to delete right now. KidAd (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm seeing a sentence, maybe two, that constitutes a claim to notability, and even that is sketchy: her votes on a hot-button national issue are unexplained and inconsequential. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If Lisa Goodman is somehow not notable, then we would be better served by having a conversation about why members of the Minneapolis City Council are not notable. There are thirty-nine pages in Category:Minneapolis City Council members and most of them have only held the local office that Goodman is apparently, suddenly not notable for holding. Taking this one off approach to Minneapolis City Council members seems counterproductive.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Vanamonde93: Why is it that when you want to delete an article you can just go "Not GNG" with no elaboration on why the existing sources fail, but if you want to keep an article you have to provide some grand soliloquy as to why it should stay? How are the keep arguments any weaker than the delete arguments?--Mpen320 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mpen320: That's because it's impossible to prove an absence of coverage, only a presence. Those arguing to keep need to provide evidence that the subject meets GNG (or NPOL, or another notability standard). If such evidence is prvided, the onus is then on those arguing to delete to demonstrate why that evidence isn't valid. At the moment, no evidence of notability has been provided in the AfD; the closer cannot be expected to check all the sources in the article. If the sources there are sufficient, that should be stated here, with quotes if necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: How am I suppose to improve the article to demonstrate GNG if the nominator who proposes deletion provides no specifics as to how the sources fail to show GNG. Did they fail because they might be considered local? Did they fail because one might be considered primary? Even outside of my belief this is a bad faith nomination based on her recent votes, there is no way to defend their claim beyond "she's a long time councilwoman from one of the largest cities in the country," without further guidance from the nominator. Without saying "The sources are primary and therefore fail GNG," the argument is no stronger than "there are other Minneapolis council member articles."--Mpen320 (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mpen320: Intentionally or otherwise, that's a leading question which I'm not going to answer directly. I will confine myself to saying that to meet GNG the coverage needs to be substantive in multiple, independent, reliable sources, and that each piece of coverage counting towards GNG needs to meet all of those criteria. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The discussion should be closed as No Consensus. KidAd (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Minneapolis City Council. I haven't gone looking for sources myself, but the responses were pretty clear, and I've waited a week to decide whether to post this, and in the meantime the sources didn't get much better, even under pressure. The nomination and the delete/redirect !votes make the only assertion that really counts for notability, which is WP:SIGCOV. In contrast, the keep !votes are ugly business:
1. First, a basic invalid WP:OTHERSTUFF claim, then mutated into an implication that WP:POLOUTCOMES matters instead of WP:NPOL (actual guidelines) or WP:GNG; then, when actual guidelines are pointed out, simply repeating the first claim instead; then when someone unilaterally tries to compromise, they get a sarcastic bully taunt of "Thanks for the op-ed wall of text.", later followed by a false accusation that the other person started the sarcasm first, followed by another taunt that the other person has said enough and should stop contributing.
2. Second keep !vote, same claim of WP:POLOUTCOMES, but at least there's a loose attempt to address WP:N with "Google news search shows numerous articles about her city council actions". Too bad that's followed immediately by what appears to be a racially-tinged conspiracy broadside against anyone who agrees with the nomination — and in all-bold text at that.

In summary, the deletion explanations are on point, and the keep explanations look more like WP:NPA violations by newbie WP:SPA fanboys who think there's a conspiracy to suppress their friend's up-and-coming band for playing music too cool for the establishment. I actually looked at the history page for this AfD because I couldn't believe that two editors with 5-digit edit counts were responding like that. At least one of them is normally level-headed, so I'm going to be nice and assume that there's just a bad moon and people have been indoors too long this year. But since someone brought up "outcomes", I'm pointing out that rancid keep !votes like that almost always indicate an article going down in flames. So it's time to either point out specific, significant biographical coverage about the person, not just council votes, in independent sources that are not routine/mandatory or merely local interest coverage, or it's a delete. And, by the way, just in case there's WP:POINTY griping in later city council AfDs: The same policies and guidelines apply to any related/similar article with the same disposition. --Closeapple (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. I don't see what your problem is. If you want sources, here are some: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Not all of the keep votes are frivolous. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To speak to these references, the first is a personal blog without any evidence of editorial oversight and does not help to establish notability. The second is a reliable source, but I would argue this argument about her assessment on her property would not reach any level notability as only one paper seemed to have written about it. Third is routine local political coverage and is not primarily about Goodman. The 4th and 5th ref is a newsletter and not considered reliable for notability. The 6th reference is a press release, not considered reliable for notability. The last reference is considered reliable but it was 9 years prior to only other reliable source listed and a completely different issue. I still don't see anything that help her meet the threshold for WP:GNG or WP:NPOL as none is really any sort of significant coverage on her beyond a couple single events several years apart. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wow, I agree that the keep proponents are going overboard. First off, WP:OUTCOMES starts with:
This page summarizes what some editors believe are the typical outcomes of past AfD discussions for some commonly nominated subjects. This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change. The community's actual notability guidelines are listed in the template at the right. Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies.
Secondly, it's damn bad faith to screech that people "only want to delete her because she's on the council." Strange though it might appear, there are actually editors on Wikipedia who vote in deletion discussions on the merits of the argument. If Goodman's vote was in the news because of the Floyd incident, and that's where significant coverage of Goodman (as opposed to just of her vote) came from, then that's a BLP1E issue and still a notability fail. Ravenswing 07:06, 15 August 2020 (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.