Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta MacGlashan

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta MacGlashan[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician, unsourced since 2007. Google News search finds nothing significant, just mentions in routine reporting about county business. MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - subject of article has 770 hits from 1994 on. Most are behind a pay wall, therefore I cannot say whether any are sufficient enough to be considered "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator: I would have no objection to a redirect to Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, and in fact that might be more appropriate than outright deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per copious news hits shown by RightCowLeftCoast above. Paywalls suck, but they're a fact of life. The question is whether independent, reliable, third party sources exist, and they clearly do here. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in terms of notability. this current elected official has at least 770 hits. The article could be significantly expanded if that's the issue. This seems to be part of a series of clean up in Sacramento County Board of Supervisors articles, noting this article's nomination for deletion and the Susan Peters (politician) article. It may or may not be better to consolidate all the officials into one article, rather than have some articles on half of the existing officials and none on the other half (the ones being nominated for deletion currently). 08OceanBeach^S.D. 02:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no systematic cleanup was intended; I found them both while working on the backlog of unsourced BLPs. --MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad then. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 03:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As 08Ocean Beach SD noted above, I nominated two articles about Sacramento County supervisors at the same time. At the other discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Peters (politician), there is some sentiment developing that all the members of this county board of supervisors should be merged into the article Sacramento County Board of Supervisors. Is there any support for that approach here? I think whatever is decided about one of these entries should also be done for the other, because they are very comparable in the amount of coverage they have received. I probably should have linked them, but I found them at different times. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see using that approach here, myself. Carrite (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Since the Susan Peters article was closed as "Keep" this biography should probably be kept as well. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2011 (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.