Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Fitzgibbons


 * 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 all. Michig (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Lisa Fitzgibbons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Five WP:BLPs of people notable only as city councillors in a city of just 51K. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL; city councillors get a presumption of notability only in major, internationally famous global cities on the order of New York City, Los Angeles, Toronto or London, and for any city below that level a city councillor gets a Wikipedia article only if they can be well-sourced as significantly more notable than the norm. But in all five of these articles, the only sources provided are the city council's own website (a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE that cannot assist notability) and their ratings from Americans for Prosperity (a non-neutral source.) Wikipedia is not a platform for the Tea Party movement to publicize its ideological opinions about political figures — we exist as a neutral encyclopedia based on reliable sources, of which there haven't been any shown here. One other councillor has also already been prodded, but these other five aren't in a keepable state either. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bearcat's excellent reasoning. City Councillors are not notable, unless they are in a large city. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all even a mayor of this city would not be default notable, a city councilor even less so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, for the record, the same editor did also create an article about the current mayor at the same time — it's at Bob Jackson (American politician). Because the notability standards for mayors allow for much smaller cities than the notability standards for city councillors do, I left it out of this nomination to give it a chance at improvement — but it wasn't actually sourced any better than these ones are, and thus is still technically deletable too. I still wouldn't bundle it with the councillors, due to the differential standards involved — but I'm going to nominate it separately. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete None of these individuals have any claim to notability for a global encyclopaedia. All fail WP:NPOL and WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. None pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all as still questionable for the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister   talk  05:20, 7 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.