Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Mansfield (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Angela Mansfield
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly-sourced WP:BLP of a politician notable primarily as a city councillor. Prior discussion landed at no consensus, and there's been no discernible improvement since, so it's time for a revisit. While Indianapolis is a large enough city that a councillor could be deemed to pass WP:NPOL #3 if the article were substantively written and properly sourced, the "automatic inclusion for big city councillors" which was cited by the keep side in the original AFD applies only to cities in the global city class of metropolises — which Indianapolis is not in. Every past or present Indianapolis city councillor who actually has a Wikipedia article got that article for holding some office at the state or federal levels after their terms on city council — with the exception of the newly created Zach Adamson, also already up for deletion, nobody else has an article if Indianapolis' city council is the highest level of notability they have attained. In addition, this article is sitting on one solitary reference — a Blogspot entry, which doesn't count as a reliable source per WP:BLOGS. Despite claims of further sourceability in the original discussion, not even one source has been added to the article in the intervening four years — and even in the original discussion, the dispute hinged on whether or not there was enough sourcing that was substantively about her. And on the matter of substance, all we've got here is that she voted for the city's human rights ordinance in 2006. None of this, neither the sourcing nor the substance of the article, is enough to get a city councillor into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete We need more and better sources to keep articles on members of city councils.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - this stub needs significant improvement. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep She meets WP:POLITICIAN as a city council member of a major metropolitan city, Indianapolis. The article needs improvement though. --  MurderByDeadcopy  "bang!"  17:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The minimum standard for automatic "because she exists" inclusion of a city councillor is not "metropolitan city of regional prominence" — it's "alpha, beta or gamma class global city", which Indianapolis is not. In a city in Indianapolis" "metropolitan but not globally prominent" class, a city councillor could pass WP:NPOL #3 if her passage of WP:GNG, on the strength of media coverage, was already demonstrated in the as written version of the article — but Indianapolis is not a city where city councillors get an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist. It's a city where a city councillor only gets an article if you can write a good and well-sourced one right off the bat, and not one where any councillor ever gets to keep, even temporarily, an article that's written and sourced like this. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because no one's taken the time to improve the article does not mean that the article is not notable. Fyi - This does seem to be more of a personal matter to you. -- MurderByDeadcopy  "bang!"  18:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, "because no one's taken the time to improve the article" does "mean that the article is not notable". City councillors in places outside the global city class of cities are not a class of topic that are entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist; they're a class of topic that only gets to have an article if that article is already well-written and well-sourced enough to satisfy WP:GNG right off the bat. If you think she can be sourced well enough to satisfy WP:NPOL #3, then the onus is on you to show that by actually putting in the work to source her over NPOL #3 — but our notability standards for city councillors do not permit her to even temporarily keep an article that's sourced exclusively to a Blogspot blog with no evidence of RS coverage shown. Even a person who actually held an "automatic NPOL pass" office, like a President of the United States or a state governor, still wouldn't get to keep an article that was sourced that poorly.
 * And no, it's not "personal", except insofar as respecting and maintaining and following Wikipedia's content and sourcing and inclusion standards is a thing that we're all supposed to take seriously. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — UY Scuti  Talk  19:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Consensus has consistently been that we do not routinely include members of the city council for even large cities like Indianapolis. The only US cities I'm sure we include are NYC and Chicago, & I think I could justify Boston. Outside the US, it would depend on the role of the council.  DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom and above editors. Not enough non-WP:ROUTINE coverage to meet notability requirements.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.