Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misty Buscher

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 no consensus‎. Redirecting is an editorial decision that can happen outside of AFD. It’s clear there’s no consensus to use the delete button. Courcelles (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Buscher[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 mayor, not reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not all "inherently" notable just because they exist -- the notability test for a mayor requires significant coverage that enables us to write a substantive article about her political impact: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But all that's here is two footnotes verifying her declaration of her candidacy and her swearing-in as mayor, which is not enough.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a stronger, more informative and better-referenced article can be written, but just stating and minimally sourcing that she exists as a mayor is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Springfield, Illinois, where the mayor is listed. Djflem (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm ok with the redirect. Likely TOOSOON, all articles simply confirm her win. One post is of the mayoral debate. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added some references. The subject was already an elected official (city treasurer) 8 years prior and had some coverage from that time period. I've no opinion on whether this is enough to keep, thus just leaving thus comment. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The last eight mayors of Springfield, Illinois have articles and only Karen Hasara would be considered notable under the notability guidelines for politicians. There's a reason. Generally, locally significant politicians can pass GNG. Springfield is the state's capital, the central city of a metropolitan statistical area, and has 100,000+ residents. I think this is a case of a need to improve the article rather than delete the article.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article as now-referenced demonstrates definite notability -- unsurprising since Springfield is the state capital and has a 114,000 population. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Springfield, Illinois - coverage is all WP:ROUTINE coverage of a local politician running for office. The past mayors of the city having pages is not a rationale for keeping an article... There is always going to be routine coverage of local elections. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 Buscher 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)} 16:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True the mayor isn't an event, but it's been held over and over again at AfD that WP:ROUTINE applies to news coverage of any topic in Wikipedia, and there's no distinguishing news coverage here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, I can only go by what our guidelines say. That's what the closing administrator will use. I suggest if you don't like these guidelines, that you propose a change; you can cite these AfDs you're talking about.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer - I just re-read my comment above and thought it probably sounded snarky. That was not my intent.

When I said that stuff about changing guidelines, I meant that for real - it's a discussion worth having elsewhere (perhaps as an RfC at the Village Pump) to settle this issue (i.e., guidelines don't match actual recent practice). I think it's suboptimal when practice doesn't match our guidelines -- either change the guideline or reinforce its use as already written.

I didn't mean it in the sense of "go away" but it looks that way when I look at it now.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mayors need more than routine local coverage to be kept at AfD. I don't know why I'd need an RfC to change that rule - it's just what we've always done, take a look at some of the archives. SportingFlyer T·C 09:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of mayors as per above - mayors do not have inherent political notability, and there's nothing demonstrating she's received any notability from non-WP:ROUTINE coverage outside the city she's been in charge of, so she doesn't meet WP:GNG. Otherwise every mayor everywhere would be notable, and that's not how we operate. SportingFlyer T·C 09:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mayor of Springfield she's as notable as the previous few mayors who have articles. It's also a new article (was red link a few weeks ago) and it can be improved! Ninevolt (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, largely per A. B.'s analysis above. I don't think there is any serious question that the GNG is met here. As to the specific question of AFD precedent, i.e. whether repeated erroneous decisions by AFD participants to delete articles despite a lack of authority to do so under any relevant policy or guideline can, by simple dint of repetition, cause those decisions to no longer be erroneous, I think the question answers itself. -- Visviva (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2023 (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.