Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary Waldorf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to List of mayors of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Consensus is to not keep the article as a stand alone; a redirect seems appropriate as this is a plausible search term. ♠PMC(talk) 06:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Waldorf[edit]

Rosemary Waldorf (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)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a former mayor, which is resting on a single source and is thus not referenced well enough to satisfy the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our inclusion criteria for local officeholders. While it used to be the case that mayors were automatically presumed notable as soon as the city surpassed 50K in population, that's since been deprecated by a lot of more recent AFD discussions -- a mayor's notability is now much more purely dependent on how much sourcing and substance can actually be shown to actually get them over WP:GNG. But with one source, and literally no substance here besides "she was elected, she was reelected twice, she stepped down, the end", what's required simply isn't being shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mayors of cities of this size (57,000 people) are not usually considered to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First female mayor of Chapel Hill, one of the state's most influential cities. Similar status to Howard Nathaniel Lee's status as the city's first African-American mayor and Mark Kleinschmidt's as Chapel Hill's first openly gay mayor, both of whom rightly deserve their bio articles as well. Scanlan (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - To address the questions over coverage, Waldorf served as mayor from 1995–2001, during the early days of online news and government sources. Regardless of location or city size, much of the content from local & state news sources from the mid-to-late 1990s are offline or no longer posted (link rot, etc.). It's why comprehensive sources are more readily available for more recent mayors like Mark Kleinschmidt or current mayor Pam Hemminger (whenever her bio is created in the future). Scanlan (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being the first member of a politically underrepresented group to hold an otherwise non-notable public office is not an inclusion freebie. We do not automatically accept the first woman mayor, or the first non-white mayor, or the first LGBT mayor, of every place that ever had mayors as an automatic notability pass — the inclusion standard for mayors begins and ends at "enough sourcing is present in the article to get him or her over WP:GNG", and that sourcing has to go above and beyond the exclusively local. And it's not enough to say that sources probably exist somewhere, either — hard evidence has to be shown that the necessary depth of sourcing does exist. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2017 (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.