Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynette Sweet (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. v/r - TP 19:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Lynette Sweet
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article give no evidence of notability. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * KeepA One of a series of hasty AFD noms by this editor, with no indication he followed WP:BEFORE. Please check Google News Archive, at least, before presenting a bio for deletion. She gets 258 hits at Google News archive, many of which are behind paywall, but which show her to be frequently quoted in nationally carried AP and UPI stories about Bay Area transit. To survive AFD it is not required that the refs be posted in the article; they just have to exist. A nominator owes other editors the courtesy of checking for refs and not leaving it to the others who follow AFD. Edison (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You warned me already for getting flak, nice that you give it yourself. In my opinion an article must show notability, not external sources. It is up to the original author to give evidence of notability, not for newpage-patrollers to check if an article is maybe notable. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep, there appears to be sufficient impact to meet WP:GNG and the article is of benefit to the encyclopaedia. I have to agree that there is more to meeting WP:BEFORE than suspecting that an article might not meet the notability criteria and it most certainly is the problem of new page patrollers to make good faith attempts to check if there is a reasonable expectation that the article might be improved in the near future with better sources. This is not a good nomination and the nominator should have spotted that the last AFD was a speedy keep less than 3 weeks ago which, even though it was problematic, is an indicator that any new nomination should be carefully written and would have benefited from an explanation of whatever efforts that were made to address the BEFORE guidance. An improvement notice on the article would have been sufficient to encourage discussion and improvement, an AFD in this situation is unhelpful and appears heavy handed. Fæ (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep a fairly significant electoral office in the SFBA. The article's first sentence shows notability (a sentence saying "BART is the rapid transit system for the SFBA, one of the worlds most populous metropolitan regions" would complete the proof without having to click over to the BART article), so the nominator rationale doesnt apply. If our article on Barack Obama was simply "Obama is the current president of the US", with no refs, only an external link to the white house, that would be enough to avoid deletion. Opinions about articles showing notability are irrelevant, the fact remains that no matter how poorly an article is constructed or referenced, there is absolutely no justification for deleting it for that reason alone. Remove unsourced material, sure. trim out sourced facts which are nonnotable, great if not disputed. deletion is another matter, and it IS our job as page patrollers to search dligently for proof of notability, even if the article creator didnt.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete we don't need an article on every elected dog-catcher. Don't be blinded by the poor rationale by the nominator. Gigs (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If I see a poor nomination I much prefer bat it back with a speedy keep rather than wasting time debating it. If you have an opinion truly based on the sources available that this article fails GNG, you are free to raise a well written and well thought out nomination after closing down this poor one. The logical conclusion to your "don't be blinded" rationale would be to allow AFDs with no nomination or "I don't like it" AFDs which might be okay in theory, but tends to assume everyone has plenty of time and enthusiasm for pointless discussion. Thanks Fæ (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't have a speedy keep guideline for "nomination wasn't very good", but we do have one for "empty nominations". We could speedy keep it by ignoring rules, if there's a compelling reason for that.  If you'd like a better rationale for my deletion vote:  Run-of-the-mill local level politician, all of which might draw trivial sound-bite type mentions in local news media.  A few passing references in local newspapers, and a press release from her campaign site (a campaign that she lost), does not make notability.   Gigs (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, if this was a real nomination then it would be down to opinion on interpreting impact with the sources available and the likelihood of better sources in the near future; though as you mention it, IAR is policy and MILL is an essay and I invariably prefer to rely on policies rather than essays. Fæ (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * strong delete (as filer) By whom is this lady voted into the Bay Area Rapid Transit District? In fact the BART district is nothing more then an upgraded buscompany. I don't think that an elected member of this district is notable. If you look at [WP:Politician] she fails all criteria... Night of the Big Wind (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC) yep, I did do my homework
 * I'm striking out your "strong delete" here; as nominator your "delete" !vote is already on the record, and you only get one !vote. Of course, you can comment as much as you like. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that would be because she is not a politician. Fæ (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable based on the large number of stories which mention or quote her. In response to the various sneers about "dog-catchers" and "bus companies", nobody is claiming that her position as a BART director makes her automatically notable; it does not. She is judged as an individual, and she is notable as an individual. The relevant guideline is the amount of news coverage the subject has received, and she has received plenty - far more than what is cited in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2011 (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.