Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Daigle


 * 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   no consensus. I think MelanieN has it right that a redirect/merge is appropriate, however there is no consensus to keep, delete or merge. v/r - TP 14:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Leslie Daigle

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non notable local councillor, who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Of the refs in the article, one is a blog and can be discounted, three are standard local press coverage of a debate between local council candidates, all of them mentioning her in passing, while the remaining ref is about a minor controversy she was involved in and seems a classic case of WP:BLP1E Valenciano (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling she may meet the GNG, this is a major city and she is now running for assembly, if she has the GOP nom she will likely win as Orange County is overwhelmingly Republican, let's cool off for a second as the article needs a lot of work to make it neutral.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, as I have begun to look over the links provided above to find sources its very obvious that there is numerous non-trivial coverage of her in-depth in reliable sources far beyond her current election, mostly covering her positions and campaigns on the city council, showing that this subject meets the GNG. Here are some that stood out, however there are more, and also I am sure more can be found.(needs wayback). The second half would be the best sources if anyone has a too long didn't read approach to verifying it for themselves.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The nominator states that this woman is a non-notable councilor that does not meet POLITICIAN and this is half true, but there is a wide array of reliable sources showing this person does however easily meet the GNG as there are numerous news articles about her that cover her in depth beyond those that give cursory election coverage. The sources don't just mention her in passing, just most of the sources currently in the article but ones that mention her and her policies and projects in depth are clearly available. Also whether or not a controversy she was involved in was minor or not there was enough attention given to the matter to merit press of the subject, minorness is therefore speculative and irrelevant.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply:I did go through WP:BEFORE and saw those sources but the problem I have is exactly the same as the one that Purpleback below mentions. Every local councillor in the world will get quoted here and there in the local paper, but generally "news in passing" like that to me falls short of WP:GNG. Some of the sources you list above contain only the briefest of mentions e.g. here. The sources you give also include a blog, one called votelesliedaigle and the google scholar one which simply lists the members of the council (no one doubts that she's a councillor.) Likewise, in assembly races, major party candidates will get mentioned in general articles in the local paper like this one but to me that is an article on the election campaign, which is notable, rather than Leslie Daigle. Valenciano (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment If a topic meets WP:GNG, it doesn't matter whether or not the topic meets WP:POLITICIAN.  This is stated in the lede of WP:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely accurate. If it was, WP:POLITICIAN and other guidelines shouldn't even exist.  Passing WP:GNG (which this might not even do) doesn't mean automatic keep  p  b  p  18:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's completely accurate, if something meets GNG it doesn't have to meet other criteria. POLITICIAN is for examples of automatically notable politicians. GNG is for all other politicians and all other subjects that don't immediately meet some other criteria. That is the consensus. And it should be mentioned that this user has been topic banned from RfDs that I am involved in especially California and local government.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Inaccurate, in both the interpretation of GNG and the interpretation of the topic ban.  p  b  p  23:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Come off it, you guys. Let me remind you that you are supposed to avoid speaking to each other. In this case Lucifer and Unscintillating are completely correct. Anyone, politician or not, who meets the criteria of GNG can have an article here, because meeting GNG means they are notable. (That's what GNG is: the General Notability Guideline.) WP:POLITICIAN exists to provide an exception to GNG; it says that people who hold certain political roles, such as congressman or state representative, can have an article here regardless of whether or not we can demonstrate significant coverage. (For example, politicians from the pre-internet era.) This person does not qualify for that exception - that is, she does not meet POLITICIAN - but if she meets GNG she gets an article anyhow. End of story. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete: For starters, we have an open "jungle" primary in California now. To say, "she's running for Assembly and she'll win" is WP:CRYSTAL if anything is.  Newport Beach has a population of just over 100,000; that's not a "large" city IMO.  Likewise, being mentioned in the local paper a few times isn't enough to pass either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN.  Furthermore, the rescue tag is being misused yet again...  p  b  p  18:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment sure it is crystal that is right dude to the now open primary. Nevertheless she has significant press coverage in reliable sources. A lot of coverage actually and whether it is a local source or not is arbitrary and irrelevant. Ignoring such sources would make local content impossible. Cities over 100,000 people are designated as major cities in the United States according to the census bureau. Being mentioned a few times in any paper is not enough, but she has been covered in depth numerous times over several years as the main subject of many articles in addition to more than trivial mentions beyond that. I also take offense to the absurd and disreputable claims that the rescue tag is being misused. It's purpose is for anyone that wishes to get help improving an article that is slated for deletion to improve its sources and content in an effort to transform it into an article that can more easily be kept and that is what I have used it for. Simply believing that the rescue system should not exist is not abuse it is irrelevant opinion that detracts from a notability discussion. In fact anyone should be glad to have an article tagged for rescue, because if rescuers are unable to find sources it really does clarify notability, whereas when sources are found and the article is improve everyone benefits from deciding on an articles merits in a fully developed and sourced state.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How the USA classifies major cities is really neither here nor there in an international encyclopedia. In a lot of countries 100k would equal town status. Which are the sources where she has been covered in depth as the subject of articles? Regarding the lots of sources arrguments, the vast bulk are mentions in passing in her local paper. WP:GNG says: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Valenciano (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The previous poster talks about the issue of multiple sources, but as per footnote 3 in WP:N, with bolding added, Unscintillating (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Fact is, though, this individual has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are not about the same story, including:, , , and to a lesser extent . Per WP:GNG: Northamerica1000(talk) 22:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - This person may meet section WP:BASIC of Notability (people), in which it's stated (in part) ..."If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."... Northamerica1000(talk) 05:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But the Daily Pilot only really counts as one source, and even in that the coverage boarders on triviality p  b  p  14:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wholly disagree. Under this rationale, topics sourced from the same news companies in separate news articles with different themes would only qualify as "one source". Different articles from the same news company count as multiple sources, not singular. The way WP:GNG is written as "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." doesn't pertain to separate articles from the same news company as being one source, nor should it. These three news articles used in the Leslie Daigle article are from the same news company, but are about entirely different topics:, , . Northamerica1000(talk) 22:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Leaning Keep - This individual meets criteria #2 of WP:POLITICIAN, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.", because city council members are in effect politicians, involved in local politics, involved in the governance of cities, create ordinances and statutes, etc. The topic also appears to meet WP:GNG with significant coverage that is beyond routine coverage, including:, , and to a lesser extent (regarding significant coverage) . Northamerica1000(talk) 22:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * President Obama gets routine coverage in the sense that he is routinely covered. Unscintillating (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed my !vote above to "keep". There's just enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (changing to Redirect, see below) Non-notable, local city council member. She has no notability outside of her own town. All coverage is purely local. Not even the Los Angeles Times, the regional paper of record for the area, has ever mentioned her that I could find. I stand corrected, she has received a few passing mentions in LA Times stories, as shown by Unscintillating NorthAmerica below. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW I note that one of her claims to fame is that the local paper listed her as "one of the 103 most influential people in Newport Beach." Her "fame" is based on being one of the 103 most influential people in a town of 85,000? I rest my case. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – Here's two articles from the Los Angeles Times. They're essentially passing mentions of Daigle's comments regarding retirement benefits for lifeguards in Newport Beach, and hence likely not pertinent to qualify topic notability within the context of this AfD discussion. However, these sources can be used to expand the article with verifiable facts. Also, Newport Beach is a city of 85,186 residents as of the 2010 census, not a "town".
 * Lifeguards' special-status pensions under scrutiny in California
 * Newport Beach lifeguards' retirement benefits scaled back
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 15:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By California standards, 85,000 is a "town". Or if you prefer, it's the 85th largest "city" in California; that's not a very impressive position. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By the City of Newport Beach's standards, as listed on the city's website, the city is considered as a city. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course. In any case, being one of the 103 most influential people in a settlement of that size is hardly a Wikipedia-level accomplishment. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Instead of Delete, I recommend a Redirect to California State Assembly elections, 2012, where she is already mentioned. This is the usual way of handling political candidates for state office who are otherwise non-notable. In the (unlikely) event that she should win, this article could then be expanded, and meantime the history would be preserved. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. She fails WP:GNG, and I would also note that a WP:SPA created the article.  Regarding her candidacy and the Republican nomination, she is challenging a sitting Republican Assemblyman, so she would have to knock him off.  To emphasize MelanieN's point about Newport Beach's size even more, Newport Beach is the 11th largest city in Orange County.  Anaheim, Santa Ana, Irvine, Huntington Beach, Garden Grove, Orange, Fullerton, Costa Mesa, Mission Viejo, and Westminster are all larger Orange County cities.  11th largest in a single county shows just how small Newport Beach is in the grand scheme of things. OCNative (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – The size of a city doesn't confer with topic notability for a person, because topic notability is based upon sources, not geography and population. Also, Wikipedia has many articles about uninhabited towns. See some of the entries at List of ghost towns. The demographic and geographic characteristics (population and size) of the city being considered as relative to the relevancy and topic notability of an individual who works within it's limits is a flawed argument. Also, does this !vote include an analysis of sources presented in this discussion, including, ,  and ? Northamerica1000(talk) 01:48, 6 May 2012 (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.