Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathi Cozzone


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Kathi Cozzone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This bio is of a local politician, the sources discussing Cozzone are local which is not significant coverage as defined in the notability guidelines. One national reach publication, Roll Call, only gives fleeting mention (again not significant coverage). ColonelHenry (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that significant coverage requires non-local sources? Thanks, Orser67 (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The relevant notability guidelines is WP:POLITICIAN, and IMHO, Cozzone is not a major local politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. I worked for a local paper 15 years ago, they're rather pathetic and needy to fill the page...The Unionville Times piece was likely a press release from Cozzone at the beginning of campaign season. Likely self-published press release and the paper ran with it almost verbatim. The Phoenixville piece is about her being one candidate in the election. A 300-word brief, she figures in about 40% of the article. Not a big deal. The Berksmont piece  is 250-word brief about the reorganization of the board...o.k. so what, she's vice chair in a commission's typical annual round-robin selection for a rather useless formality of a post...that's all it says. I can take a piss longer than it takes to read that article. A handful of dubious local news pieces with superficial coverage doesn't make her notable. Per WP:RS - less-established news outlets are generally considered less reliable. further, being reported on in a local paper isn't "significant coverage" independent of the person. Most local papers write articles on short-term interest stories, and largely from press releases by whoever wants a little publicity. these are small-time papers, and less reliable than a big market outfit. per WP:NTEMP, WP:BLP1E "if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." When she makes it to real newspapers with significant coverage (not some passing b.s.), or finds her way into a book, then she might be notable enough for an article. Right now, the local police blotter is likely more interesting than some article about her county commission meetings.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion, but it seems to be just that, opinion. I don't believe that this deletion is based on Wikipedia guidelines, but rather your own opinion about what is notable.
 * Sorry dude, belitting my reasonable assessment of this insignificant local politician won't convince me of this person's notability. And I'm usually very inclusive--she doesn't pass muster.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep: Subject has numerous sources covering her, and holds a powerful position in an important position in a well-populated (500,000k) and politically important county. Orser67 (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable local politician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete... non-notable local politician.  ColonelHenry nails it on the head. Onel5969 (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable local politician and a delete is a usual outcome per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Enos733 (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2014 (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.