Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brigette Peterson (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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Brigette Peterson
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lacks notability. Being mayor of Gilbert does not itself make a subject notable enough for an article.

One reason is that Gilbert is an overgrown suburb in effect. It is a tertiary population center within its metro area. Mayors of Gilbert do not tend to carry widespread political influence or over their metro area, unlike mayors of similarly-populous communities that are the primary anchor of metro areas. This should be evidenced by the fact that other mayors of Gilbert largely lack articles and many mayors of similar suburban cities also lack articles.

Another reason is that, on top of the aforementioned dynamic, Gilbert most resembles a weak mayor government. Day-to-day administrating is actually the city managers' role, not the mayor. This further weakens the notability of the mayor, as they don't actually have all that much power over city policy. 

If Peterson does something that garners her particular note within her office or outside of it, then she would warrant an article. But she hasn't, as far as I know.

I think that there is no particularly notability, and therefore a deletion is warranted. SecretName101 (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians,  and Arizona. SecretName101 (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging contributors to the previous (no consensus) deletion discussion so they can respond to this proposal and the arguments laid out.      SecretName101 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging a key article contributor as well @Jamiebuba SecretName101 (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, the decision that will be made at this AFD (and others you have made) don't rely on the nominator's belief in the notability (or lack of notability) of the article subject but on whether reliable sources, either in the article now or ones that are found through the course of this discussion, can establish a subject's notability. In my time closing AFD discussions, I've seen lots of articles on subjects I thought were not notable Kept because sources found demonstrate that they are, in fact, believed to be notable. What did you find in your BEFORE search for additional sources? Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Liz For starters, it is not a promising sign that among the early results in a google search are trivial pages about random people with the same name. Should be a major red flag for lack of notability. After sixteen results that include several of her social media accounts, a few routine local articles on her, as well as her campaign website I was given results that have nothing to do with her and which are of ridiculously low-notability. Results that would never pop up within the first hundred-plus (probably thousand-plus) results for a incumbent officeholder with actual notability. These include (within the next sixteen results:
 * a wedding site for another person of her name (congrats those two, hope it all goes well in September)
 * Some other Bridgette Peterson's Pinterest page with whopping 92 followers
 * the Charity Water fundraising page of a young girl with the same name that has raised $250 dollars from 13 donations all made a decade ago in 2013 (good for that girl)
 * The ScottsdaleRealtors.org page for a realtor with the same name
 * the website of DundasDome (no clear discernible connection to the term "Bridgette Peterson" is present on that webpage, which is like fifty more red flags that it was an early result for that search term
 * A Flickr account belonging to another person of her name with zero followers and only twenty pictures all uploaded on June 4 and June 5, 2010
 * A University of Minnesota college student's report on nutrition of competitive swimmers, which google says has been cited by a single other person.
 * and also:
 * a nearly content-less dot-net hate Wordpress about Bridgette
 * SecretName101 (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, even routine local coverage articles on her can barely muster anything to say. Look at this AZ Central article. It's clear the newspaper could muster anything actually notable on her, so called it a day. (also worth noting that this article appears twice in the first 16 results, also appearing through Yahoo's syndication reprinting of it SecretName101 (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep It was really easy to find sources for this article. Was able to get some newspaper stories about her that I've added as well as some controversies that are not tranisant.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 10:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide examples of non-routine coverage that illustrates/establishes notability. Without outlining receipts, your ability to "get some newspaper stories" cannot be evaluated as establishing notability. The existence of "some stories" that are accessible does not inherently grant a subject notability. SecretName101 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dr vulpes Pinging SecretName101 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep due to significant coverage in reliable sources that demonstrate meeting the criteria detailed in WP:GNG. Examples include:
 * 1) https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/gilbert-mayor-under-fire-for-proposed-limits-to-public-comments-11734354
 * 2) https://www.gilbertsunnews.com/news/for-new-mayor-gilbert-was-love-at-first-sight/article_f0928608-4c87-11eb-b810-bb0f5e48876d.html
 * 3) https://www.yourvalley.net/stories/gilbert-mayor-answers-anonymous-text-campaign-against-commuter-rail,316362 (I wasn't able to get past the paywall, but I'm satisfied from what I saw that it provides significant coverage)
 * 4) https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/clip/113469977/gilbert-mayor-did-not-violate-ethics/ CT55555 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @CT55555 These are run-of-the-mill local news stories. Millions of clearly non-notable local officials have similar coverage. SecretName101 (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Suggestions of ethics violations and limiting freedom of speech are interesting and unusual pieces of news coverage, not routine. That they are local has no negative bearing on notability, I am aware of no policy that discounts local news coverage. Having considered your comment, it does not persuade me to change my !vote. CT55555 (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @CT55555 suggestions of ethics violation are "not routine"? Are you saying that it's not routine to find politician being potentially ethically sketch? I hate to be a cynic, but I'd call that incredibly commonplace.
 * And limiting public comment at forums in the manner she proposed might be reprehensible and a big deal to local residents, but it's definitely not something that gives her any broader notability. SecretName101 (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Mindful of WP:BLUDGEON and also WP:COAL I'm not going to keep repeating myself to justify my !vote. CT55555 (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @CT55555 Also the headline is literally "Gilbert mayor did not violate ethics", so you are you literally saying the mere allegation of run-of-the-mill ethics violations makes her notable?
 * I'm bewildered how you think these are the stories to illustrate notability. SecretName101 (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't have a rule that local coverage is ineligible for use. We do, however, have a rule that local coverage isn't necessarily enough to clinch inclusion all by itself if the person can show absolutely no evidence of having a wider range of coverage beyond the purely local. (For instance, a high school athlete who has accomplished nothing that would satisfy our inclusion criteria for sportspeople is not going to be exempted from them just because he has two or three pieces of local coverage in his own hometown media in run of the mill local interest contexts, and a child actor who hasn't otherwise passed WP:NACTOR is not going to be exempted from it just because he gets a couple of pieces of "local kid gets bit part in movie" in his hometown local media.) Bearcat (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bearcat all that is being provided is local coverage of things that do not establish any distinguish meant or notability.
 * when all you can point to are non-distinguishing stories in local media, you have not established notability SecretName101 (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you addressing this comment to me, when it doesn't contradict what I said? I'm not the one who was trying to argue that the existing sources established notability, I was trying to provide context for why they don't. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bearcat I am agreeing with you SecretName101 (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then why did you ping me as if you were replying to me with a counterargument? Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

it still hasn't been effectively established by anyone that she meets notability. The coverage that is provided does not establish her as holding a notable office or being a notable individual. Local officials do not inherently meet WP:POLITICIAN. Being mayor of Gilbert is a very local office, with only a local impact. And on top of that, the "weak mayor" system generally weakens the inherent range of impact of its holder has even at the local level. Holding this office is not enough to establish notability. As a result, she would need to have done something that is notable in particular to be of enough note. Nothing has been established that what she has done in her office (or outside) is distinct and noteworthy. If actual coverage that establishes significance could be provided, there'd be a case to keep here, but none has. SecretName101 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG and to expand article. See, per User:CT55555: Gilbert Sun News and others. Jaireeodell (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jaireeodell expound on how they meet the criteria. The news source you point to is routine coverage. A local paper publishing a piece on a newly-elected official does not make them notable. Otherwise, every longtime elementary school teacher that received an in-depth profile in a local newspaper when they retired would be notable enough for a Wikpedia article (not to insult the great value of teachers' work) SecretName101 (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @SecretName101 I think the source I point to is reliable and provides information that could be used to expand the entry. Notability is met, in my opinion, by the fact that she was elected to be mayor of city of more than a 100,000 people. Non-local media coverage includes The Arizona Republic (state wide coverage). (I believe this is more than what a longtime elementary school teacher would receive.) Jaireeodell (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jaireeodell
 * the source you provided does not cover anything about her that makes her actually NOTABLE. Reliability of a source does not make the article’s subject inherently notable: reliable sources routinely cover stories/subjects that do not themselves meet notability standards.
 * Population in excess of 100,000 still does not give the officeholder inherent notability. It is a “weak mayoralty” in a suburban city that is a tertiary community within its metro area. That’s not a position which holds inherent political influence at broad. I have already stated this. Also, see my postings at Articles for deletion/2023 Carmel mayoral election for why political office in such overgrown suburbs don’t carry inherent broader notability.
 * I have already stated why population alone is not a signifier of importance of a suburban city’s population. She holds a “weak mayor” position in a suburban municipality that is lower than a tertiary municipality in its metro area even in terms population. Not really a position that holds inherent broad political note/influence. For more arguments on why government offices in overgrown suburbs like this are not inherently politically notable, see my postings at Carmel mayoral deletion nom
 * Also Arizona Republic is local coverage. Just as the Chicago Tribune is local coverage of the happenings in Chicago’s suburbs, the Phoenix-based Arizona Republic is local coverage for Phoenix suburbs. SecretName101 (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: The Arizona Republic ... "Circulated throughout Arizona, it is the state's largest newspaper." ... "twenty-first largest, by circulation" in the United States. As for the concept of a "weak mayoralty," I'm not sure that it matters. One can hold an office of public interest even if that office is ceremonial. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bearcat It is a Phoenix-based paper. Its coverage of Phoenix suburbs is local coverage.
 * Just as the Chicago Tribune is distributed broadly and among the 10-most circulated paper in the United States but still publishes local-coverage for Chicagoland. Just as the Star Tribune is distributed broadly, top-ten US newspaper, still provides local coverage of Twin Cities metro. Just as the Los Angeles Times is distributed broadly, top-ten U.S. newspaper, and still provides local coverage of LA metro. Just as the Boston Globe is a top-ten US paper, and still publishes local coverage on the Boston metro.  Same with the Washington Post and local Washington coverage. Same with the New York Post and local coverage as well. SecretName101 (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You pinged me to reply to somebody else again Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging SecretName101 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jaireeodell Additionally, holding a local office that has no inherent notability itself ("ceremonial" as you state) would not confer notability in and of itself. You'd need to do something(s) to establish note. SecretName101 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Local news media is always going to cover local politicians, as that is a routine part of their duty. In the absence of regional or national-level sources, the question should thus be not whether local sources cover this person, but whether they do so to such a degree as to cross the threshold of significance. Curbon7 (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources are reliable and independent. Mayor of one of the largest cities in Arizona. Scanlan (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Scanlan The reliability and independence of sources do not confer notability to a subject. Every day, independent and reliable sources publish millions of pieces on subjects that would not meet notability standards
 * Also, you did not address the crux of nomination made about how the population of this municipality does not make the officeholder inherently notable. Municipality is a mere suburb that is less than even tertiary in populace within its own metro area. The mayoralty in this city is created by a "weak mayor" system, which does not confer much power to the mayor. There is little ground to argue that she holds an office that confers automatic notability. SecretName101 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Starting with the obvious, the subject does not pass WP:NPOL so the question is whether the subject meets GNG. The community's expectation of local elected officials is the article must be more than "the mayor exists" (see WP:POLOUTCOMES). Size of a jurisdiction has largely been discounted by the community as a reason for keeping (or deleting) an article. The expectation is that articles about local officials contain and the sources illustrate specific projects the official spearheaded or the specific effects the subject had on the development of the city (this is often reflective of an official's career or the sources suggest is novel {that is saying an official championed a local development is not sufficient, but recognized as championing a novel policy may {see the deletion discussion for Tina Podlodowski}}). It is helpful that the sources are national, and not entirely local because because those national sources provide context for what the subject accomplished in office (see the deletion discussion of Denis Law. As is, I do not see any source for this subject that goes beyond saying "she exists." There is no obvious redirect target as her mention in Gilbert is temporary (there is not a list of mayors). --Enos733 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC.--User:Namiba 17:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Namiba please give specifics on how. What establishes here general notability in your opinion? What significant coverage has she received?
 * Asserting that it meets these without elaborating at all on how is not helpful or persuasive. SecretName101 (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your passion for deleting articles about certain politicians, but try not to dominate deletion discussions. This system is intended to produce widespread community input. As User:CT55555 wrote above, the sources provided are, in the estimation of those arguing for a keep result, sufficient per Wikipedia's policies. It's on you to prove that the article doesn't meet those standards.--User:Namiba 11:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Namiba You are telling me not to litigate/respond to counterpoints.......yet also telling me I have to prove the article doesn't meet those standards.
 * Those are contradictory commands.
 * By explaining to why sources others provide are failing to establish notability, I am properly engaging in this discussion as well as enforcing my case. SecretName101 (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are plenty of sources available to meet WP:GNG. Whether the editor likes suburbs is unimportant, the sources exist. Whether the mayor is weak or strong, the sources cover them. notability has nothing to do with whether one particular editor has snobbish feelings against smaller cities in major metros, but that seems to be what this set of nominations is about. Jacona (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jacona That's a mischaracterization of my rationale. It's not that I don't like suburbs: it's that this particular city's mayoralty is not enough to confer notability, and notability is not otherwise established.
 * Please actually read my rationale and substantively respond to it, as well as my previous points of why GNG is not established by sources.
 * This individual does not meet notability standards.
 * It's clear you were not careful in considering what has been laid out before responding, since you so inaccurately characterized it.
 * And please do not call me "snobbish" towards smaller cities. My argument is about whether the office she holds is notable enough to infer her immediate notability. It isn't. I have edited and created numerous articles on this project about/relating to smaller-cities and even small suburbs. That is a false and unwarranted personal character attack that should not be hurled here, and I'd appreciate an apology if you have it in you. SecretName101 (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * SecretName101, How is your characterization of Gilbert as "an overgrown suburb in effect" anything but snobbishness? I am sorry that you feel that calling your snobbish statement snobbish is a false and unwarranted personal character attack. — Jacona (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe familiarize yourself with what a suburb is and look to the rest of what I said for context of that statement. A suburb is an a descriptor for an outlying area, rather than the central anchors, of a metro area. Gilbert is populous by virtue of its broad boundaries (a hulking 68.79 square miles), encompassing a large area of suburban land. But it is still just an amalgamation of suburban area, rather than than the central force within its metro area. Holding mayoralties in the primary center of a metro area is notable, in part, due to the dynamic where political decisions within such centers have impacts felt on the surrounding metro area. On the other hand, individual suburbs generally don't have such an impact on the rest of their metro area, because the area's economy and politics is not tied to them in quite the same way.
 * It is not a commentary on how I feel about suburbs. It is just how the dynamics of metropolitan economies and politics generally work. SecretName101 (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jacona Furthermore, it is worth noting that Gilbert's mayoralty is not just a weak mayoralty in a municipally that is of below- tertiary population within its metro area, but that it is also weak mayoralty within an Arizona town government.
 * Per Gilbert: "Since Gilbert remains incorporated as a town, it lacks the additional powers possessed by nearby Mesa and Chandler, which are incorporated as cities. For instance, Arizona towns do not have as much power to regulate utilities and construction within their borders as cities possess."
 * Being mayor of Gilbert, quite simply, is not a position that carries inherently broad influence. SecretName101 (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether or not the town or position carries inherently broad influence, what matters is that Brigette Peterson, the subject of the article has received WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, and is therefore WP:N. — Jacona (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jacona And how has she? Nothing has been pointed that actually does. News coverage that has been pointed to is local and largely goes as far as "she exists". SecretName101 (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: Since there is a heated debate going on here, I had to study the sources very carefully. From my observations, I must say that she passess WP:GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thilsebatti It would be useful to explain what your observations were, if you could spare some more time. SecretName101 (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2023 (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.