Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libby Garvey


 * 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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Libby Garvey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:POLITICIAN That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Nominator has made questionable excisions to this article, after leaving a message here that seems to me to imply they have given up on discussion. Please click here for the last edit of the article by someone who is not trying to get it deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Warning:
 * No, I've given up on discussing with you the notability of this BLP. In the meantime I have indeed deleted portions what I consider to be OR and contravening the BLP policy.That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Nominator was, apparently, a sockpuppet -- see Sockpuppet investigations/Which Hazel?
 * Update:

I am going to change from keep, to snow keep, because the nominator has turned out to be a sockpuppet. Sheesh, what a waste of time my attempts to AGF turned out to be. Geo Swan (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * discussion
 *  Keep Snow keep -- WP:POLITICIAN explicitly says of local politicians, like Garvey: "such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." Garvey lives in a whole other country than I do, but even though she is a "local" politician, her comments on transit issues in Toronto were covered in my local papers.  I don't think there is any doubt Garvey measures up to our general notability criteria, and that the article is well enough referenced to substantiate that.  Geo Swan (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage? Where?  This is just local politics. And the tenor of the article is indicative of this being a BLP1E.  Her position on transit is not notable, nor even unique. That man from Nantucket (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please Comply with WP:BEFORE.  You think the coverage of suffers from being too local?  Did you take 20 seconds to do a google book search prior to making this nomination?  If not why not?  Geo Swan (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's too local IMO. None of the other board members have articles for good reason, with the exception of one who received significant coverage outside of local issues for being the first openly gay man to be elected to a statewide position.  Receiving mentions in local metro sections is not significant.  And please don't point to that tired "otherstuff" link.  Wikipedia is not a directory of local politicians until they achieve some degree of notability.  Opposing a streetcar is a high enough bar?That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, then you should have voiced this concern on the talk page. I am going to admonish you for not doing that, instead of the crisis move of initiating an AFD.  I can't help noticing that you have chosen to ignore the many links to Garvey a google book search hits on.  You haven't explained why if to use your phrase "Her position on transit is not notable, nor even unique" the author of these books chose to quote her, or paraphrase her.  Similarly, I can't help noticing you are continuing to ignore that Garvey generated coverage in a whole other country, and you haven't explained why you don't recognize this as eroding your "too local" claim.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Admomish me? Ok, I'll admonish you for creating a BLP1E article, which is obvious from the infobox "known for opposing streetcars". Which is totally misleading because in fact she opposed a specific streetcar. Additionally, the comparisons from editorials comparing her to Ford is an ad hominem attack on Ms, Garvey and IMO is violating the spirit of the BLP policy.    Once again, Ms. Garvey did not receive significant coverage as required per WP:NPOL.  There might be a case for an article on the failed Arlington Streetcar, but Ms. Garvey doesn't even come close to the criteria set forth in WP:NPOL.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , several elements of your concern boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You, personally, don't think her opposition to a streetcar is important enough to merit a standalone article here. However, nominations aren't supposed to be based on what you or I personally don't like.  They are supposed to be based on what reliable sources found worthy of publication.  My personal opinion, your personal opinion, simply don't count. You wrote, above, "Her position on transit is not notable, nor even unique."  I listed, below, several books, on transit issues, that quoted or summarized Ms Garvey's position on transit issues.  How many politicians does the USA had, at the municipal level, over the last ten years?  Let's pick 500,000.  Those authors picked Garvey's position, from among those 500,000.  I think this completely erodes your personal opinion that her position was not notable or unique.  I can't help noticing you chose not to respond to this information.  Unless you return here, to explain yourself more fully, I am going to assume your silence is a tacit acknowledgement that you recognize your statement was completely incorrect.  You have asserted here that you are ignoring that this article has about a dozen references because those are all "local" references.  Alright then, which wikidocument do you think authorizes you to discount references because they are "too local"?  I searched myself.  Guess what?  I didn't find any.  WP:LOCAL is about covering items of local geographic interest, and encourages such coverage.  The closest thing was WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Dispatches, which does not back up your concerns.  The people who write for newspapers do so for a living.  Somebody chose them because they were regarded as being able to exercise a wise choice as to what merited coverage there.  Further, they are part of a team, they answer to editors, who curb their enthusiasms, demand fact checking, require rewrites.  Here at the wikipedia we explicitly trust those judgments, while not trusting my personal opinion, or your personal opinion.  Your personal opinion that Garvey's opposition to the Columbia Pike streetcar is completely irrelevant, since professional journalists and editors disagreed with you.  The Alexandra Times, and Arlington Now employ professional editors, just the same as the Washington Post.  You wrote: "Additionally, the comparisons from editorials comparing her to Ford is an ad hominem attack on Ms, Garvey and IMO is violating the spirit of the BLP policy."  BLP is frequently mis-cited.  BLP is not intended to protect politicians from having their gaffes covered.  Our policies require us to report neutrally on what some might see as their gaffes, but when something a Virginia politician says is picked up in multiple publications in a whole other country, yes, that is definitely something worthy of coverage here.  Practically none of the references we use is written so that they measure up to the wikipedia standard of the neutral point of view.  It is not required for us to find references that measure up to NPOV, because we make sure we quote, summarize, paraphrase our references in a way that measures up to NPOV.  I think I did so in how I covered the Toronto coverage of Garvey.  If you disagreed you should have said so, on the talk page, or substituted your own wording that you thought was more neutral.  We don't delete articles over disagreements over whether passage comply with NPOV.  As to your assertion that Garvey is a person only known for one event - I see this as a second way you are misinterpreting BLP.  BLP1E is intended for someone like that angry flight attendant, captured on a cellphone video that went viral, a few years ago, who passenger saw raid the liquor cabinet, rant about how much he hated his job, and then stomp off the plane, leaving them grounded.  We had never from him before, so, without regard to the flood of coverage his rant received, he was a BLP1E, and, if we never heard of him again, he would remain a BLP1E.  If he were to appear on Oprah, to talk about substance abuse, or was to appear on dancing with the stars, or he became a televangelist, well that would be two events.  The coverage of Garvey is clearly for multiple events.  If that angry flight attendant got additional coverage in various reporters new year's eve roundups of most memorable stories, but that news year's eve coverage didn't add anything new, he would remain a BLP1E.  And if it added a significant update, new information, he is then known for two events.  For Garvey we have on-going coverage, of her progress in getting the streetcar cancelled.  Each update, with significant new information, should count as an event.  Her surprising backing of a candidate from the other party?  That also counts as an event.  And what about her career as a trustee?  It was not without incident.  In 1999 she interviewed a candidate for school supervisor Robert G. Smith.  Hers is a disadvantaged municipality.  Smith is highly respected now, a Professor of Education, crediting with dramatically lifting academic results during his ten year tenure.  Apparently, when he talks of this dramatic success he cites a challenge from Garvey to refuse to accept that students coming to school from a background of poverty were eventually going to fail.  And references back up that he refers to Garvey's challenge to prove the common wisdom wrong.  Okay, the credit lies mainly on Smith, but that he credits Garvey's challenge when he talks about his success is notable, and IMO merits being considered an additional event.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You obviously have a problem understanding what "significant coverage" means. There is far more coverage over the Arlington Streetcar and far more coverage about other politicians who were involved than Garvey.  Your argument is obtuse and boils down to "ILIKEIT". I'm done with you and your passive aggressive tone.That man from Nantucket (talk)|


 * Comment I would normally add references to the article directly, but I won't have time right now. I am however, going to point out that coverage about Garvey (not just the streetcar stuff) is covered heavily in The Washington Post: The search with Washington Post articles singled out. (Sorry for posting this up here, but when I post under the book cites, my post disappears.) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This isn't even a close call. There is more than sufficient coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources of this politician's life and career to meet our general notability guideline. Trimming it, per WP:UNDUE is, no doubt, in order but the hatchet job that's been done on it during the pendency of this nomination strains the assumption of good faith. Once this AfD is closed, the article should be reverted back to its prior state, info from the sources that have now been explicitly identified should be weaved into it and then it should be trimmed to make sure no one set of facts is given undue weight. David in DC (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the sources I've found and what is already in the article, and what's presented in this AfD, passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think we have enough here to meet GNG.  That said, I do think this is sufficiently in the gray area that one could reasonably argue that she is simply a local politician who has made a few news headlines (in Northern VA, the Washington Post is often the "local news").  I say this because I think reasonable minds could disagree about this article, and I don't think anyone needs to admonish anyone else.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (and others using GNG as a reason) GNG is not a panacea. This is precisely why there are specific notability guidelines for almost every situation.  WP:POLOUTCOMES is the most germane guideline. It spells out very clearly the guidelines for local politicians, especially the last two bullet points.  Specifically  Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role. Has there been coverage beyond the scope of Ms. Garvey's normal duties?  Any such notability in this case (for those that examine the biography) comes from her opposition to a now failed plan to build a streetcar system in Arlington County, which itself fails to have an article and would probably not survive an AfD if one were created. The next two bullets are indented, because while not apparently relevant to an AfD discussion, fixing the weight problem and removing the BLP and you are left with an average local politician, who does not appear to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for local politicians.  At the risk of being called a canvasser, I'll ask one of the politic groups who probably have more experience with these sort of politicians to opine.
 * As notes, there may be weight issues.  75% of her. "Career" section is devoted to the streetcar.  Every single member of the Arlington County Board for the past 20 years would be considered "notable" using this streetcar issue.
 * Indeed the very first draft of this article certainly looks like a coat rack to label a politician as being "anti streetcar" and using Ford as a vehicle to tarnish her. The infobox has an unsupported claim she is known for "Oppoisng streetcars" which in fact is blatantly false, besides being completely unsourced. What's worse is the listing of Ford's misdeeds in an apparent attempt to smear Garvey's judgment, as well as attributing the statement that Garvey is  "rogue member of local government" and "Virginia's Rob Ford". to multiple Toronto journalists, when in fact that statement is in part attributed to an article title (which is inappropriate according to RS guidelines) from a reporter from an "alternative" newspaper who from perusing his work commonly uses inflammatory and terminology in his work which I suspect most editors would rephrase, or not use at all.That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read or re-read the criteria for nominating articles for deletion. Assertions that a contributor thinks an article has (1) "weight issues"; (2) had an earlier version with a problem; (3) claims someone thinks are unsupported -- these are not grounds for deletion.  These would all be solvable concerns to be addressed through the normal editorial process.  Rather, they would be concerns to be addressed through the normal editorial issue -- except not by a nominator, while the AFD is still open.
 * You wrote: "using GNG as a reason, GNG is not a panacea. This is precisely why there are specific notability guidelines for almost every situation."  I don't believe there are any special purpose notability guidelines that say that a topic that measures up to GNG is nevertheless non-notable because of its criteria.  Rather, they are all more inclusive than GNG for the topics that measure up to their exceptional criteria.  WP:POLOUTCOMES, which you mention above, explicitly says that "all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else."  So your arguments that there is no article on the Columbia Pike Streetcar, or on her colleagues is simply irrelevant. Why isn't your claim that Garvey is no more notable than her colleagues merely an argument that her colleagues merit coverage, as well?  On May 20th, didn't you yourself write "And please don't point to that tired "otherstuff" link..."?  You realize it looks like you have completely contradicted yourself on this issue?  Geo Swan (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And therein lies the problem. There is no notability for Garvey or her colleagues. There certainly is no notability, much less sourcing that she opposes streetcars, with all due respect was the thrust of your initial draft. Does quoting Rob Ford complaining about snow and streetcars make her notable?  I would say that is not even a close call.  Now if she quoted or praised some of his unorthodox ramblings I would say that crosses the threshold.  Your first draft and your later incorrect use sources to make an outlandish claim against Ms. Garvey could be construed as a WP:ATP by some.That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , as I wrote above, every concern you voiced here, is an editorial issue, which should have been raised on Talk:Libby Garvey, and are not grounds for deletion. You claimed the article's references are too local, and we are still waiting for you to point to the wikidocument that recommends discounting ongoing, substantive coverage, because it is "local".  You have made some claims, imo questionable claims, that some of the language, in one single paragraph of the article lapsed from BLP.  Hello!  This is not grounds for deletion.  If, for the sake of argument, others shared your concern, then that paragraph should be rewritten.  WRT whether citing Rob Ford's opposition to streetcars means Garvey opposes streetcars...  Rob Ford never commented on the Columbia Pike streetcar.  Garvey cited Ford's opposition to streetcars as a justification for her opposition to the Columbia Pike streetcar.  Bolstering her position by citing his general opposition means she was also opposing streetcar systems, in general.  If she recognized that streetcars had a place, in some other cities, and she only opposed the Columbia Pike streetcar, then it would make absolutely zero sense for her to try to bolser her position by citing Rob Ford's opposition to streetcars.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:42, 25 May 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.