Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Wood


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 13:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Carol Wood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP, written like a campaign brochure and relying entirely on primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all, of a person notable only as a city councillor in a city not large enough to carry its city councillors over WP:NPOL. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Lansing is a state capital, so population alone is not the sole criterion here, or at least it shouldn't be.  The GNG guidelines at NPOL have some flexibility. She is mentioned frequently in the Lansing press and has been around there for quite some time.  I think GNG is met. There is no "population" standard at NPOL or POLOUTCOMES.  The article should be improved, but the individual has reached regional notability.  Montanabw (talk)  22:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * State capitals are not a special case under the inclusion criteria for city councillors. State capital or not, a city councillor gets over on either the city being objectively recognized in external sources as a global city, or the volume of sourcing expanding significantly beyond the bounds of the purely WP:ROUTINE level of local coverage that all city councillors in all cities always get. (Status as a state or provincial capital may provide a notability boost to a mayor in some edge cases, because the standard for mayors isn't as deliberately restrictive as the one for city councillors is, but it doesn't make a ward councillor more notable than the norm in and of itself.) And as helpful as WP:POLOUTCOMES can be, it's necessary to have direct personal familiarity with the actual standards that AFD is actually applying to comparable cases, even if POLOUTCOMES hasn't been fully updated to reflect them yet — and the actual state of AFD consensus for city councillors is "global city and/or nationalized sourcing". Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, let's see a source for your "world city" claim. I certainly did not notice it in any set of guidelines.  Also, you are confusing what a "ward councillor" is; in the United States, the mandate for one person/ one-vote also has added on a requirement for single-member districts for many state and local offices; hence, a city and ward council membership can be identical. But at any rate, a state capital is of sufficient notability that its officials should pass GNG, as the criterion is, simply, significant coverage in neutral, third-party publications, and in this case, that is met, more than the mere "local" coverage that you claim people "always" get.  If this was podunk, I might agree with you, but not for a U.S. State Capital city.   Montanabw (talk)  00:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As already pointed out by Enos733 below, POLOUTCOMES explicitly limits the notability of city councillors to major "internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo or London" — i.e. global cities. And this article is completely unreferenced, so the suggestion that she passes GNG on the basis of having "significant coverage in neutral, third-party publications" simply has not been shown to be true at all. And by the way, I'm not confusing what a ward councillor is, either — a ward is the district that a person is elected to city council to represent, so you didn't "explain" anything that even slightly contradicts my statement at all. Thanks for the misplaced condescension, though. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Lansing is no where near a significant enough city to grant city council members status as notable. I would say the same of my own city, Sterling Heights, Michigan, and it has about 20% more people than Lansing. This article needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat. WP:POLOUTCOMES points that in "internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London," "precedent has tended to favor keeping " city council members. Enos733 (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: If there is broad consensus that state capitals are not considered, then I can at least understand that argument even if I don't agree with it, but the population argument alone is not convincing, Sterling Heights is not a state capital, and that is a distinction with a difference.   Montanabw (talk)  08:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A city's status as its state capital has to do with the statewide layer of governance, not the municipal layer — city councillors in state capitals have no special privileges or powers above and beyond city councillors in any non-capital city, for example. On what basis could we possibly treat a city councillor in a state capital as automatically more notable than a city councillor in a larger city? Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as there's still nothing to suggest there's inherited notability or even anything generally convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  07:34, 9 July 2016 (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.