Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lois Herr (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Nja 247 08:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Lois Herr
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ironholds (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep She may fail WP:POLITICIAN, but she definitely passes WP:BIO. There are multiple sources from Lancaster Newspapers, Inc, as well as a multitude of sources from the Elizabethtown Chronicle. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All of which are minor, local newspapers and exactly what I'd expect. Is there any wider coverage from more reputable publications? Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Those sources cover in detail Lois Herr and her political aspirations. She passes WP:BIO and WP:V. All of the sources I cited above are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". How are these local newspapers not reputable? Like The New York Times, these "minor" newspapers also have an editorial staff. Cunard (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The New York Times covers events of some importance; therefore, stuff covered by them is probably quite important. Local newspapers, however, cover local news; it is no evidence of wider notability. Ironholds (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is true, but what's wrong with having articles for local politicans (as long as they pass WP:GNG)? The significant coverage she has received in her local newspapers means she passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep People who run in the election for national level posts after winning the nominations of major parties in a two-party system  should be considered notable. We've not always done it, but its time we should. It would avoid these recurrent disputes. All we need to do to meet the GNG is decide that for these cases, local sources are sufficient. DGG (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (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.