Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianne Martinez


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Dianne Martinez

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

WP:BLP of a local politician not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that she's a city councillor and former mayor of a small municipality with a population of just 12K, but people at the local level of office don't get automatic notability freebies just for existing as politicians: at this level of office, the notability test is the ability to write a substantive and well-sourced article that establishes a reason to treat them as much more nationally or internationally significant than the norm for that level of significance. But the references here aren't accomplishing that: four of the seven are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (the self-published websites of organizations she's been directly affiliated with, a Q&A "meet your city council candidates" interview in a community hyperlocal in which she's talking about herself in the first person), and even the three real media hits aren't really about her in any non-trivial way: one briefly namechecks her existence as a Filipina politician, one briefly quotes her giving soundbite on an issue, and one just tangentially verifies a fact about city policy while completely failing to name Dianne Martinez as having any connection to it at all, which means none of them count as WP:GNG-building coverage either. In addition, "first member of a minority group to do this not otherwise notable thing in her own city" is still not an automatic inclusion freebie that would exempt her from having to be the subject of GNG-worthy coverage about her (as opposed to mentioning her name in the process of being about something else). There's just nothing stated here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete not only is the place she was mayor of home to less than 13,000 people, it is less than 3 square miles in area, is smooshed between the much larger Oakland, and the somewhat larger Berkley, in the San Francisco Metro Area. It is by no measure a major or significant city. Our sourcing is no where near showing this person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Municipal politician from a small town (population approx. 12,000) does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. KidAd  •  SPEAK  18:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat, and other commenters. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Not because Emeryville is a small city, but the sources here say very little about her. Basically, her name appears in a single sentence in all of the ones I could access, or in a list of members. She is listed as a "notable person" in the article for Emeryville, California -- and what is notable is that she is Filipina-American. I'm not at all sure that this on its own makes her a notable person, but I can see that the local Filipino-American community sees this as important. I don't know what to do about that, but it's not enough to meet NPOL, unfortunately. Lamona (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2022 (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.