Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes


 * 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. Those advocating for deletion argued that the references to Viramontes were generally routine coverage of local affairs, trivial, outdated, or even to a different person. Arguments to keep included the overall volume of coverage was sufficient, that some sources had non-trivial coverage, that the nomination was in bad faith, the nomination should be ignored on procedural grounds, or that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the last three are not strong arguments. One source used, this one, did appear to give significantly more than trivial coverage of Viramontes, but this was not enough to sway those advocating for deletion. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

María Viramontes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable politician; outdated article. Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough. Split from this AfD  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, all Google Books and Google Scholar references are to directories that list little more than her phone number. A few list a completely different Maria Viramontes  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep - One of a series of cut-and-paste deletion nominations by this nominator. No indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed in this case. I also find it offensive and contrary to policy that independent, published coverage in the local press is deemed not "independent enough." This is not NewYorkCitypedia or Londonpedia or Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. This article is clearly non-notable.  You haven't even bothered to read it  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (retracted comment)  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  15:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The nom should be aware of the fact that Carrite posted their comment about 9 hours before the nominator posted the additional rationale. You don't know whether they've seen it or not, since they have not commented further here - so accusing them of not having bothered is right out. I'd appreciate it if you retracted that remark. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly do so.  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  15:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think that the subject is clearly non-notable, but there needs to be significant coverage to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN in this case. She was a council member for a municipality, which does not itself indicate notability, and she was/is (?) the CEO of a foundation. I can't find anything about the foundation - and that's what I thought might lend more notability than the council seat, frankly. Show me sources and I'm happy to Keep this one, but I just don't see it. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete She was a one-term two-term councilmember and received minimal coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Was a two-term council member. Unscintillating (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I stand corrected. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * keep, bad faith nomination, this woman I believe was the leader of the anti-green party, pro-chevron, pro-casino, anti-enviroment "Viramontes 5" opposition bloc on the council which made headlines when it was overthrown giving the council a very progressive majority. She meets the general notability requirement.Luciferwildcat (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree, on that basis - but for the fact that I can't find sources to confirm. If we can source this article, it's a slam-dunk keep - and, as I said, I'd be happy to switch over to that recommendation. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I also looked for evidence whether "Viramontes Five" became a common term or "made headlines" in local politics. Apparently it did not. The only reference to the Viramontes Five that I could find was this, an op-ed by an opposition councilmember (thus not independent) in the Berkeley Planet (not a major or Reliable Source). It does not appear that she achieves notability on this basis. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment is there a way to delay this vote to find them I am sure they are there, Look what I could do with Harpreet Sandhu, but with so many nominations I don't have the time while the deletion clock is ticking, that is what makes mass nominations bad faith to me.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not seeing a hit on either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Municipal politician, a single term on a council, what coverage exists appears to be routine and local. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence that she meets WP:POLITICIAN. Sionk (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:N.  As per Carrite and others, there are concerns about this nomination and WP:BEFORE.  I added seven refs.  There are more in the San Francisco Chronicle archive.  Was a two-term council member, involved in legalized pot, legalized gambling, and slavery reparations.  Probably got attention from the media for being the leading female Latino in the city.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Coverage underwhelms, and hardly comes close to substantial, bordering on trivial. Most of it is routine and purely local.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This topic passes WP:GNG. Note this more specific Google News search below, in which the topic is covered in numerous reliable sources:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're going to need to link to the specific sources that you feel makes this GNG worthy that everyone else seems to have ignored, not simply copy-paste the find sources template.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which, may I add, you seem to have done on quite a few AfD's recently. Remember, the point of these discussions is to help form a consensus through actual supported arguments and points, not to simply build up as many !votes as possible regardless of quality.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Yaksar. Have you actually looked at the sources? I don't believe this vote should carry much weight unless a specific, in-depth source is mentioned  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you? Any serious attempt at looking through the sources will find you many, especially about the Point Molate casino, and the 2008 election. The SF chronicle, contra costa times, and oakland tribune mention them a lot.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Firstly, the find sources link I posted above is not a "copy/paste", it is a refined, customized search that yields search results for this topic. Secondly, per WP:BASIC, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. 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." Many of these links do not constitute "trivial coverage", and address the subject in detail. See, , for just a few of them. Lastly, the comment above about my !vote as existent to "build up as many !votes as possible" is false, and opinionated. However, I do fully understand the concept of specificity, hence the clarification with link examples in this comment. Peace. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Firstly, the find sources link I posted above is not a "copy/paste", it is a refined, customized search that yields search results for this topic. Secondly, per WP:BASIC, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. 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." Many of these links do not constitute "trivial coverage", and address the subject in detail. See, , for just a few of them. Lastly, the comment above about my !vote as existent to "build up as many !votes as possible" is false, and opinionated. However, I do fully understand the concept of specificity, hence the clarification with link examples in this comment. Peace. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment wp:notability is not defined by the existence of an "in depth source" but rather is the sum of the attention being given the topic.  I added two more refs to the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think there's some confusion as to why there are objections to an article with purely local coverage, especially for a politician. We need some sort of indication that the coverage is more significant than routine reporting on local affairs. We trust, for example, that The Day (New London) is a reliable newspaper in its region, but that doesn't mean that every city councilman from, say Groton, Connecticut should have an article. We need to try to use some WP:COMMONSENSE on what actually counts as significant coverage, and a bunch of one line mentions in routine articles is not that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Far more trivial people have been kept with a lot less sources like local rappers J-Stalin, Lyrics Born, and MC Lars.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument if ever there was  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  22:58, 13 December 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.