María Viramontes – A narrow majority of commentators agree with the "delete" closure, which means that there is no consensus to overturn it. – Sandstein 19:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This article was part of a mass nomination of city councilors nominated for deletion by a single user. All the articles were tagged with rescue and all have been kept but this one. It it my strongly held belief that since it took a while to find sources for each article this article was deleted prematurely. Also it was not taken into account that most delete votes were based on the stub state of the article before its massive overhaul. The result of the debate should clearly have been keep per the sources or per the "votes" it should have been no consensus. At the very least it should have been relisted for further comment. Do these reliable independent non-trivial references establish notability? If not, why not? Please cite guidelines or policies in your response. Because I believe this article does. And based on the fact that this is the city council of a major city of over 100,000 people in major media market (the San Francisco Bay Area) it would be very foreseeable that even more sources could be found, as they have been for every other member. This particular council routinely gets coverage outside of the area, even in Beaufort, New York, LA, and Havana. It's not your typical city council. I also think there was a strong failure of considering a merge to the article about the council itself as the council itself is considered irrefutably notable.LuciferWildCat (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
Extended content
Dana Perrigan, Special to The Chronicle (June 29, 2008). "Where we live. Steeped in history, Richmond looks forward.". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/29/REL311CKGC.DTL&ao=all. Retrieved 2011-12-11. "A fourth-generation Richmond resident, Maria Viramontes...Viramontes' grandfather settled in the city in 1910..."
Grant Will Help Richmond, Calif., Immigrants Get Healthcare., Contra Costa Times, by Rebecca Rosen Lum, July 23, 2003. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/premium/0286/0286-8896344.html retrieved May 24, 2007. "'This is a very, very important issue for Latino groups,' said Richmond Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who helped Brookside Community Health Center land a $450,000 federal grant to build an out-patient clinic"
Vicki Haddock, of the Examiner staff (November 21, 1996). "San Leandro places pistol tax on ballot". San Francisco Examiner. SFGate. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1996/11/21/METRO9534.dtl Retrieved 2011-12-12. "...predicted Maria Theresa Viramontes, executive director of the East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership, a collaboration of cities, school districts and law enforcement agencies uniting to push an array of gun-control measures."
Chip Johnson (February 2, 2004). "Richmond's budget says: 2+2+2=9!?? Financially inept city may cut council seats". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. p. B-1. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/02/BAGOA4MSA61.DTL Retrieved 2011-12-11. "Last February, City Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who chairs the Finance Committee, was directed to slice $5 million..."
Jim Herron Zamora, Chronicle staff writer (June 17, 2005). "Richmond. 4 on council call for a state of emergency. The idea is to raise $2 million to fight violent crime wave". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/17/BAGM0DA7LS1.DTL Retrieved 2011-12-11. "'We're living in extreme times that call for extreme measures,' said Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who was joined by three other council members at a news conference."
"NIJ Annual Report to Congress 1996.". US Department of Justice. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. 1996. http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/166585.txt Retrieved 2011-12-12. "Appendix A: Awards Made in Fiscal Year 1996...Domestic Violence Intervention Project. East Bay Community Foundation, Berkeley, California. Maria Theresa Viramontes. $100,000."
Hey there, I think you should review the deletion for several reasons. First of all, the way your phrased it implies to me that you found it to be notable but since most people found it not notable you went with delete. But it's not a vote and that seems to be treating it as such. Secondly it was part of a mass nomination of articles related to the Richmond City Council that editors have been scrambling to rescue, and every other one looks like it will be successfully saved. Now having said that it doesn't necessarily bare weight if other things are kept but the point is that more time was needed. Also most of the delete votes were based on the articles previous state before the sourcing and copyediting was done by rescue. The sources for this woman are numerous and based on them she is generally notable and if anything she it notable for merger into the Richmond City Council or city of Richmond, California article. I would like you to reconsider your approach here and suggest the article be kept.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comment wasn't that she met Wikipedia's notability requirements, I just assessed the arguments on the AfD page. Jayjg (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure biut my point is that I would like you to review this deletion and to reverse your decision on the matter. I believe the result was actually no consensus. Will you reverse the decision?LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the discussion of a deletion review this article (which IMO, is clearly unwarranted; the article fails POLITICIAN and ANYBIO in spades) be discussed in a public forum so that people other than Lucifer may comment? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my close, but anyone is free to take any deletion to deletion review, if they wish. Jayjg (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really would rather not bother them with all that, as I think the content could easily be salvaged into the city council article. Is that something your willing to do? And for the record asking the closing admin on his ramtalkpage is a procedural prerequisite for a deletion review as outlined on the deletion review steps, this is nothing but a man to man request and no public comment is warranted here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what do you mean by "the closing admin on his rampage"? Are you referring to me? Jayjg (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apology that was meant to be "talkpage" but I must have had a Freudian slip that was directed at the nominator not at you. I think the mass nominations were a bit of a rampage but I hadn't even noticed I used that here and it seemed like an odd question and I had to reread.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do these reliable independent non-trivial references establish notability?
Do these reliable independent non-trivial references establish notability? If not, why not? Please cite guidelines or policies in your response.
Dana Perrigan, Special to The Chronicle (June 29, 2008). "Where we live. Steeped in history, Richmond looks forward.". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/29/REL311CKGC.DTL&ao=all. Retrieved 2011-12-11. "A fourth-generation Richmond resident, Maria Viramontes...Viramontes' grandfather settled in the city in 1910..."
Grant Will Help Richmond, Calif., Immigrants Get Healthcare., Contra Costa Times, by Rebecca Rosen Lum, July 23, 2003. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/premium/0286/0286-8896344.html retrieved May 24, 2007. "'This is a very, very important issue for Latino groups,' said Richmond Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who helped Brookside Community Health Center land a $450,000 federal grant to build an out-patient clinic"
Vicki Haddock, of the Examiner staff (November 21, 1996). "San Leandro places pistol tax on ballot". San Francisco Examiner. SFGate. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1996/11/21/METRO9534.dtl Retrieved 2011-12-12. "...predicted Maria Theresa Viramontes, executive director of the East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership, a collaboration of cities, school districts and law enforcement agencies uniting to push an array of gun-control measures."
Chip Johnson (February 2, 2004). "Richmond's budget says: 2+2+2=9!?? Financially inept city may cut council seats". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. p. B-1. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/02/BAGOA4MSA61.DTL Retrieved 2011-12-11. "Last February, City Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who chairs the Finance Committee, was directed to slice $5 million..."
Jim Herron Zamora, Chronicle staff writer (June 17, 2005). "Richmond. 4 on council call for a state of emergency. The idea is to raise $2 million to fight violent crime wave". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/17/BAGM0DA7LS1.DTL Retrieved 2011-12-11. "'We're living in extreme times that call for extreme measures,' said Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who was joined by three other council members at a news conference."
"NIJ Annual Report to Congress 1996.". US Department of Justice. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. 1996. http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/166585.txt Retrieved 2011-12-12. "Appendix A: Awards Made in Fiscal Year 1996...Domestic Violence Intervention Project. East Bay Community Foundation, Berkeley, California. Maria Theresa Viramontes. $100,000."
Frances Dinkelspiel (February 11, 2010). "Plan for casino in Richmond raises fears of a bad precedent". The New York Times. Retrieved 2011-12-18. Maria Viramontes, a Richmond councilwoman who originally voted against the casino in 2003, recently said, "It's an opportunity to bring investment to Richmond if it's done properly."
Absolutely they do. This council is very unique in that it gets itself involved with things like the Gaza Flotilla, Cuban diplomatic affairs, supporting occupy and getting dissed about it on national TV, they are quite the coterie.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." If there is a consensus to delete, then there is a consensus that the above list fails WP:GNG, and if there is a consensus, the consensus should be able to give some sense of how many more sources are needed. The consensus should also be able to interpret WP:N, "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort," and the listing of "Merging" as part of WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although at this time a ton of amazing exposes that only deal with the subject have not been found there are tons and tons of paragraphs or articles that mostly deal with the subject and many more that deal with her trivially, a s---load actually. And how many councilwomen from your hometown get press coverage in Cuba? Basically she gets a lot of coverage in a lot of places because she was a politician for a major city.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already deleted; what part of that do you find confusing? Either take it up with Jayjg or head to Deletion Review, as most have likely taken this off their watchlist. I was about to til I wondered "what the hell is going on at the talk page of a closed AfD?" Tarc (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is confused here. But part of deletion review is discussion of the matter to avoid wasting community resources. And I have contacted that closer to no avail but given him enough time to respond. So I can show a sincere and patient attempt at said DRV.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm seeing here is a refusal by Unscintillating to admit that some shmo who served on a City Council in a medium-sized town just might not be deserving of a Wikipedia article. Same with Mindell Penn, another article that's a gots-to-go case...he's taken to dumping a load of irrelevant "references" that mention Penn in passing to claim she's notable. Frankly, Unscintillating's obstinent keepism is boarding on disruption. A DRV would be a waste of community time Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maria Viramontes was a very powerful politician that ruled the majority opposition (Democratic Party vs Richmond Progressive Alliance) of a major city, and that does not constitute a "shmo". The comments about Penn's notability are not relevant here. Calling people disruptive for voting keep is seems to describe the accusation and is entirely a fallacy.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For those arguing against deletion of these Richmond councillors, the result seems to be quite good, with several articles being kept, rewritten and developed. The debates 'for' and 'against' deletion were some of the most comprehensive I've come across and the final decision was made in each case by someone who hadn't taken part. The words 'horse', 'dead' and 'flogging' spring to mind now, for some reason. I live in a capital city three times the size of Richmond and there are probably less than a dozen articles on local councillors. The Richmond articles all seem to have been created (by an editor who was subsequently banned) a short while before the 2006 council elections, which makes you wonder about the original motives. But hey-ho, we all come here with different passions and motives and we can't agree on everything all of the time. All the best :) Sionk (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Richmond is in the San Francisco Bay Area and politics are just big here, maybe they get more press here. But the councilmembers here even get press in Cuba and Beaufort and in the LA Times and Wall Street Journal. What city do you live in, there might be some members deserving of an article there.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
That was a multiple nomination, not really a mass nomination. Compared to the average admin, Jayjg is definitely drawn to the deletionist side of the force, but I think it's a bit harsh to censure him for closing that debate in that way, considering that there really was a consensus to delete. However, that debate was defective. All of the delete !votes were 100% based on a lack of notability and no other argument for deletion was advanced. However, a lack of notability is no obstacle to a merge. Therefore per WP:ATD the merge option should have been considered and it wasn't.
The minimum-drama route to a policy-compliant outcome will be to endorse Jayjg's close because it accurately reflected the consensus but userfy the deleted article to Luciferwildcat thereby giving him the opportunity to implement a merge to the council article so that we can comply with policy.—S MarshallT/C 11:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference there? I don't mean to censure him, I just found it odd that every other counselor was considered of note in a "multiple nomination" and this woman was deleted when her notability is stronger than that of the others. My main point is that most of the delete votes were based on the article when it did not have any sources included at all.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true per se. Two of them were closed as no consensus, and all had multiple editors believe they should be deleted, even after "references" were added Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." Do the nine sources listed above by themselves satisfy the WP:GNG? If not, how many more sources are needed? (Or, if you don't want to answer, do you agree that this is an appropriate RfC question?) Unscintillating (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC) P.S. I am not asking if these sources cause the article to pass WP:N, that is a different question, I am specifically asking about the WP:GNG guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it should almost be a law of wikipedia that the more bytes you kill making a point, the less value the argument put forward has. A couple of questions. Firstly, are these new sources or where they in the article during the AFD? Secondly, do any of these actually meet the GNG in terms if independant, detailed reliable secondary sources. One final point to Uncintilating, it doesn't matter how many sources you have if they are crap. Two good ones are enough for it to be kept. SpartazHumbug! 17:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are many sources indeed, how many more would be needed? Also the votes were made way before these sources were incorporated so yes new sources, some were present right before deletion, but after people voted.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my comment carefully you will already see that its quality that counts not quantity. Please can you identify from the sources you have found after the AFD, which are the two or three best ones that meet the GNG most closely? That is, reliable, secondary, independent and covering the subject in detail. Thanks. SpartazHumbug! 03:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I am disappointed that you would bring a four-letter term for excrement into this discussion; and then use the word "point", my name, and the excrement term in the same sentence. As per WP:GNG, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." "The number...varies..." does not limit us to two or three, just the opposite, more is more wp:notability. The closing admin has already listed the first one as having an extra measure of wp:notability, so I suggest that you take the next three and see if they add up to one "good" one. If those three aren't enough, then add the next one, and so on. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have an astonishing grasp of policy, You cannot agregate poor source into a good one. Either there are adequate sources or not. Lots of poor sourcing is just that poor sourcing that doesn't count. Since there clearly aren't good sources or you would have brought them further I see no point relisting this discussion so endorseSpartazHumbug! 08:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: The article fails ANYBIO and POLITICIAN. Lucifer's reasoning is flawed; this seems to be little more than a request for a re-vote by those who were unhappy with the first outcome Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Purplebackpack89 was the AfD nominator.
Purplebackpack89, do you understand the argument for a merge and the reason why neither ANYBIO nor POLITICIAN are obstacles to the merger?—S MarshallT/C 16:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I do. I still think it should be deleted, not merged. The person who started this DRV thread is asking for all content to be restored/kept in the article it was before, not to be merged, and thus I am saying it shouldn't be restored (Note also that the nominator took swipes at me in his DRV header) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the wrong call was made and that there was no consensus further I do also believe that at the very least the content should be restored to merge into the city council article so that it may incubate there.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And now that we've heard what you both believe, could we get back to policy-based outcomes? Would either of you care to address the bit where I said "neither ANYBIO nor POLITICIAN are obstacles to the merger"? What the AFD decided was that the subject is not notable. But none of the delete !votes addressed anything other than notability, and there are more ways of dealing with non-notable things than simple deletion.—S MarshallT/C 01:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An assertion of failing WP:ANYBIO and WP:POLITICIAN has no standing if the topic meets WP:GNG—as per WP:Notability (people), "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Unscintillating (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was no consensus to delete. The way the close was phrased indicated a bias towards the deletion argument "...but this was not enough to sway those advocating for deletion". This was contrary to WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete." as we do not require unanimity to establish reasonable doubt. Warden (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - "I disagree with the closer" is not a valid DRV concern. No wrongdoing noted, no unreasonable finding by the closing admin. Tarc (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't disagree with the closer, I disagree that his rationale sufficiently considered a merger, or the fact that the votes were largely made before the rescue cleaned up the article. I believe it was treated more like a vote than a consensus no consensus finding and there was no consensus. If that clears up my intentions here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who in the afd suggested a merge? How can an admin claim to close a discussion as a consensus to merge when nobody even brought it up? The requirements we place on admin candidates are pretty stringent, yes, but we don't (yet) demand that they be telepaths. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, admins are supposed to be sufficiently knowledgeable about guidelines that an outcome can be mandated even if no one is arguing for it. Administrators are not supposed to ignore policy-based outcomes (e.g., per WP:ATD) just because no one brought up the possibility. Jclemens (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to Jayjg, if he had closed that discussion as "merge" despite the absence of any merge votes, and then been taken to DRV, editors would legitimately describe the close as a supervote.—S MarshallT/C 13:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As Tarc states, this is a matter of simple disagreement. Closing admin did not abuse discretion here. Neutralitytalk 00:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
restore and merge if a good merge topic can be agreed to. Ideally the idea of a merge would have occurred to someone during the discussion. It apparently didn't. As such, the closer really didn't have it as an option (though could have !voted and proposed it instead of closing if they had thought of it). Should DRV overturn a close because the discussion is flawed? Sure, why not. Does anyone actually object to a merge at this point (assuming we can agree on a merge target)? If so, can they give a policy-based reason for why? Hobit (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well, if the content wasn't sourced it was essentially OR and we don't merge that. Maybe the content is already adequately covered elsewhere. Arguing to restore and merge is rather cart before the horse if we don't know what the target should be and the state of the article at the time of deletion. If noone suggested a merge maybe the AFD participants didn't consider one was appropriate. At the very most I'd consider a relist to consider a merge but right now I'm still inclined to endorse as I can't see the closing admin had an alternative. I'm also seriously considering proposing an interaction ban for Luciferwildcat and Purplebackpack as they clearly cannot work on the same page without getting into a fight so they should both consider themselves warned to be on their best behaviour here. SpartazHumbug! 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that these three sources [1], [2], [3] provide enough material to be able to avoid OR. Heck, they arguably raise to the level of WP:N, though IMO that ship has sailed. [4] is clearly partisan op-ed, but it too could be used carefully. The other sources listed above give us plenty of facts to work with. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A merge, means that some material from the to-be-deleted article will be worked into the target article, i.e. Richmond City Council (Richmond, California), yes? If so, what? We're not going to have short bios of council members there, that'd be ridiculous for a state-level position. How many of these people pass in and out of the board membership every few years? Tarc (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking perhaps take all those other folks who got kept and merge them into a (list?) article on the council over a certain time period. A bit unwieldy, but I think it would work. Hobit (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as I don't think the closing admin could reasonably have closed it any other way. If the articles on council members had been considered in a single AfD then the result of the discussion would likely have been that the articles should be considered separately on their own merits, which is what happened in this case. Separate AfDs can come to different conclusions and there's nothing wrong with that. Regarding the sources there was general agreement at the AfD that the coverage was routine or trivial, a view which is reasonable. WP:ATD does not mandate that AfDs consider the possibility of a merge, and closing a discussion as endorsing a merge when the possibility was not even mentioned is extremely problematic at best. Furthermore there is no obvious merge target. Hut 8.5 17:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, they were originally nominated as one, and the result of the discussion was indeed that they. So I withdrew the mass nomination and nominated them separately. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- No reasonable admin could have closed this any other way. The delete side made their points thoughtfully and provided evidence for their arguments; the keep side attacked the nominator and stated their opinion without backing it up with anything. There seems to be this notion that just saying "nuh-uh, you're disruptive" in response to a nomination entitles you to get a "no consensus" at least, but that's rubbish. This was a good and correct close. ReykYO! 02:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are not rebutted by noting that some of them might be poor. An assertion that the nine sources listed are insufficient would be problematic, since more suitable sources are available from a regional newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle. Unscintillating (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment does not point out that the closer could have relisted the AfD and requested a merge discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been a nonstandard action – if consensus is evident, the closer should close in line with it. If the would-be closer disagrees with that consensus, he/she may write a dissenting comment and let the next potential closer decide to close, relist, or also comment. Flatscan (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OverturnWikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators states, "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant."
Regarding the closing statement:
The closing AfD statement incorrectly cites WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a keep argument, this comment was placed by the nominator.
The closing AfD statement incorrectly asserts that one of the delete !votes claimed that the sources were trivial, and this error is repeated during this DRV.
None of the other delete arguments listed; "routine", "local", and "outdated"; are relevant to this WP:GNG analysis; possibly to WP:POLITICIAN; but not to WP:GNG. The final argument, the issue of citations to a different person, would only have been relevant if such had existed.
There was no consensus to delete:
The closing admin did not use the word "consensus" in the closing.
As analyzed above, the closing admin did not list any relevant delete arguments.
None of the delete positions made an argument based on content policy as to why the material should be removed, "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles..." (ref WP:N). This point is further covered in WP:FAILN, WP:ATD, and WP:PRESERVE.
Most of these considerations are either based on semantics or are irrelevant. It's true that the closing statement didn't use the word "consensus", but this is just irrelevant, and since all AfD closures are based on evaluating consensus there's no need to explicitly use the word. The closing admin did summarise deletion arguments (references to Viramontes were generally routine coverage of local affairs, trivial, outdated, or even to a different person) and the fact that he didn't explicitly quote the arguments in question doesn't say anything about the close's validity. One delete !voter (Yaksar) did say the sourcing was "bordering on trivial", and several others described the sources as trivial without using that word (there needs to be significant coverage...received minimal coverage...lacking in-depth coverage). One keep argument does boil down to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: LuciferWildCat compared the subject to several rappers with articles. Notability does not affect article content, no, but nobody claimed that it did during the debate and notability does affect whether an article on a certain topic should exist. Likewise nobody claimed that the subject should be deleted because there were no references, and when more references were added the general view was that they did not cover the subject in enough detail to pass the notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 11:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention...". Trivial is a well-enough defined concept in notability. The example is given of the reference to the high-school band The Three Blind Mice in a book about Clinton. No editor has claimed that any of the sources being discussed are trivial, and no reasonable editor would claim so. This is not the case of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, there are nine sources listed at the top of this DRV, and more reliable, secondary sources with non-trivial coverage are available from the archives of the San Francisco Chronicle, a regional newspaper. Unscintillating (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show the page that defines trivial in the context of assessing notability? My understanding is that to a degree an AFD has a lot of lattitude to determine whether the sourcing is adequate rather then having a fixed metric to assess this. SpartazHumbug! 14:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Unscintillating, I've gotta take issue with your use of civility. You're essentially equating disagreeing with you with incivility. You've done this with me and now you're doing it with Jay. The talk of the AfD page was clearly the inappropriate place to discuss the closure (and certainly the wrong place to source-dump), so it's not surprising you took flak for source-dumping there. Furthermore, your restoration argument is contingent on two things: a) A GHITS/SOURCESEARCH argument is perfectly valid, and b) an argument based on specific notability guidelines (ANYBIO, POLITICIAN). I just can't buy that. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to non-consensus on the fairly simple basis that is what the results of the AfD actually was. The standards for city council members, are disputed. As a result , the debate usually hinges on the extent of coverage--there is always some coverage, the question is usually, as here, whether the coverage is substantial. "Substantial" is a matter which no admin can decide: it is a natter of evaluation and opinion, and only the community can do so. An admin can & should discard arguments not based on policy, but must follow the community on the question of the interpretation of the policy. The closer here used his own interpretation of the policy, but he had no right to do so. It happens that his opinion agrees totally with mine on the underlying issue--I am quite deletionist on city council members of all but the largest cities, and Redmond is not one of them. If I were closing, te fact that I think the article should be deleted would be irrelevant, and the same for the closer here. I would never ever close an ambiguous discussion on the basis on my own opinion on interpretation of the matter at issue--except possibly to declare the fact that there wasn't any consensus on it. This was a true supervote. The closer used hi own judgement of whether the sources were sufficient.He would have done better to have said so as one of the people in the argument. (btw, I didn't join in this one because I no longer argue in city council AfDs like this--the ambiguity is frustrating, and we need a proper guideline, not reliance on the GNG which, as here, is usually too ambiguous for a clean decision.) DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per what seems like a consensus in the AfD. Too many of the AfD votes seemed to basically boil down to "the sources exist somewhere, go find them".--Yaksar(let's chat) 23:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
