Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Anderson (mayor)


 * 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. Sources provided are either trivial mentions (Minnesota Public Radio, Nemanic) or local newspapers. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. No merge needed as the secession attempt is already covered in Kinney, Minnesota. Cerebellum (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Mary Anderson (mayor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. While this was no-consensus-kept in a deletion discussion back in 2008, Wikipedia's standards for the notability of politicians, and the depth and quality of reliable sourcing required, are much stricter now than they were a decade ago. Her basic claim of notability is as the mayor of a small town with a population in the low hundreds -- and even that's wrapped in content-free biographical puffery like "she worked tirelessly to improve the lives of her neighbors". Of the three sources being cited here, one is a glancing mention of her existence in a book, which is being cited only to support her date of birth and the names of her parents; one is an article about her death which is being cited only to support her date of death and the length of her term as mayor; and the third is a deadlink whose content can't be verified at all. There's very little content here about anything substantive she did as mayor; her entire career is summed up as that she once sent an "unofficial" secession petition to the federal government which resulted in the town getting a new water system but never seriously approaching an actual secession attempt -- and that's sourced to the deadlink. Beyond the footnotes, there's an entirely contextless list of "other sources", all but one of which are articles about her death in local media where her death would be expected to be newsworthy. And the one exception is a history book about the secession attempt itself -- but (a) that book was self-published by its own author through a print-on-demand house, and (b) book author "Kuzma, Scott" + Wikipedia article creator "Sbk70" = almost certain conflict of interest attempt to advertise the book by increasing the encyclopedic visibility of its topic. None of this is substantive enough, or sourced well enough, to make the mayor of a village smaller than the average urban apartment building suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Selective Merge to Kinney, Minnesota § History, which already has some content about the subject. I'm unable to access linked sources in the article's references section, and source searches are only providing mentions (e.g., ). North America1000 16:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  SST  flyer  07:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Just a glance at the sourcing and it seems to pass notability. Unfortunately, the article just needs a little TLC in order to appear more informative. Carbrera (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All we've got for sourcing here is obituaries in local media which would be expected to publish obituaries of a local mayor, and a self-published print-on-demand book written by the creator of this article in defiance of WP:COI. What about any of that type of sourcing "seems to pass notability"? Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete She was mayor of a place with 250 people, this is several oders of magnitude below the level of what we need for notability. We lack indepth, reliable source coverage of her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The secession proposal leans towards notability. Orthogonal1 (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a measure of how interesting any reader might find the claims; it's a measure of the degree to which reliable sources have or haven't covered the claims. And if all we've got for reliable source coverage of the secession attempt is a print-on-demand book self-published by the creator of this article, then no, it's not notable. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination states that a reference in the article, "is a deadlink whose content can't be verified at all".  This is consistent with neither WP:V nor WP:AGF.  Further, there is no evidence in the nomination, such as results from WP:BEFORE D1, that sources outside of Wikipedia have been considered.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:V most certainly does require that it be possible for somebody to verify that the content said what it's claimed to have said — if the weblink dies, the content still has to be retrievable from somewhere else, e.g. a printed book or a microfilm or a news archiving database. And the nominator most certainly did do enough WP:BEFORE to know that if any better sources exist out there to salvage this with, they most certainly aren't in any location where I can find them. If better sourcing exists in a database that you have access to and I don't, then by all means add it to the article — that's precisely why we discuss these things — but it needs to be shown, because I'm sure not finding it in any place I have the ability to search for it. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"


 * Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online.
 * }
 * Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's true that we do not have a requirement that the source is published online; we can source stuff to print content like books, for example. But we most certainly do have a requirement that the source be locatable from somewhere: a dead web link is still a valid source if the content is archived somewhere, such as a microfilm or a news archiving database, so that somebody can actually find that source if they need to for some reason. A dead link does not remain a valid source if it is archived nowhere, and all trace of its former existence has simply disappeared. The weblink doesn't have to be permanent, but the content most certainly does have to be verifiable, somehow, in perpetuity. It's like referencing a college essay: you don't have to hand in the essay on top of a wheelbarrow stacked with physical copies of every book you consulted in the process of writing it, but the professor does have to be able to locate and read the book if he has questions about whether you misunderstood or misquoted or plagiarized it. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"
 * Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's true that we do not have a requirement that the source is published online; we can source stuff to print content like books, for example. But we most certainly do have a requirement that the source be locatable from somewhere: a dead web link is still a valid source if the content is archived somewhere, such as a microfilm or a news archiving database, so that somebody can actually find that source if they need to for some reason. A dead link does not remain a valid source if it is archived nowhere, and all trace of its former existence has simply disappeared. The weblink doesn't have to be permanent, but the content most certainly does have to be verifiable, somehow, in perpetuity. It's like referencing a college essay: you don't have to hand in the essay on top of a wheelbarrow stacked with physical copies of every book you consulted in the process of writing it, but the professor does have to be able to locate and read the book if he has questions about whether you misunderstood or misquoted or plagiarized it. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"


 * ==Keeping dead links==
 * ==Keeping dead links==

A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference. It could also return from the dead. With a dead link, it is possible to determine if it has been cited elsewhere, or to contact the person originally responsible for the source. For example, one could contact the Yale Computer Science department if http://www.cs.yale.edu/~EliYale/Defense-in-Depth-PhD-thesis.pdf were dead.... Do not delete a URL just because it has been tagged with dead link for a long time.
 * }
 * Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That quote explicitly states that the main purpose of keeping a deadlinked weblink is to help people try to retrieve a live reference again, just like what I said. And at any rate, that just speaks to the question of retaining or removing a deadlinked from an otherwise keepable article — it says nothing about deadlinked references helping to make an article keepable if there are no strong references apart from the deadlinks. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That quote explicitly states what I've posted in blue...for example, "Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past". Compare that with the nomination, "the third is a deadlink whose content can't be verified at all".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the content appears to have been "verifiable" in the past. People can and do misrepresent what a source said, through both good faith misunderstanding and deliberate falsification, and people can and do change the content of our articles — but without the ability to reverify whether the content corresponds to the source or not, we have no way of figuring out what's right and what's wrong. So if it's impossible for us to remain able to verify the reference's content today and into the future, then that reference doesn't stay acceptable in perpetuity just because it used to exist — we have to permanently possess the ability to reverify whether the reference actually said what it's claimed to have said. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Verifiable" does not mean "verified". You don't know that the source no longer exists, rather you want to assume that as a fact (in logic the argument from ignorance fallacy) in order to assert "the third is a deadlink whose content can't be verified at all".  Defending that with the argument from authority fallacy ("we have" "people can" "us" "we have") on tangential issues, stated also without references, might be relevant topics for discussion in the appropriate forum, but does not seem to address the core issue.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the content appears to have been "verifiable" in the past. People can and do misrepresent what a source said, through both good faith misunderstanding and deliberate falsification, and people can and do change the content of our articles — but without the ability to reverify whether the content corresponds to the source or not, we have no way of figuring out what's right and what's wrong. So if it's impossible for us to remain able to verify the reference's content today and into the future, then that reference doesn't stay acceptable in perpetuity just because it used to exist — we have to permanently possess the ability to reverify whether the reference actually said what it's claimed to have said. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Verifiable" does not mean "verified". You don't know that the source no longer exists, rather you want to assume that as a fact (in logic the argument from ignorance fallacy) in order to assert "the third is a deadlink whose content can't be verified at all".  Defending that with the argument from authority fallacy ("we have" "people can" "us" "we have") on tangential issues, stated also without references, might be relevant topics for discussion in the appropriate forum, but does not seem to address the core issue.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Mayor of a small hamlet who caused a bit of a local stir once - really not a suitable subject for an article. The secession proposal is already covered in the article on the tiny settlement concerned. --Michig (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Per User:Johnpacklambert, being mayor of a very small town is not enough, nor is there anything else here sufficient to establish notability. MB 20:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * weak keep She does attract ongoing attention Minnesota Public Radio,, July 2016.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * weak keep - per sources, per WP:GNG,BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per what sources and what GNG? All we have here, yet again, is obituaries in the local newspapers where her obituary would be expected to exist, and a self-published print on demand book written by the author of this article. This is not GNG-satisfying sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Being a mayor of a town of 250 people is not a credible claim to significance. The secession proposal is already covered at Kinney, Minnesota. A blogpost at Minnesota Public Radio is hardly serious evidence of long-term notability. The self-published print-on-demand book certainly is not, either. Clear delete case AusLondonder (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia notability doesn't use "credible claims to significance" as a criterion. We have little interest in "claims".  How is this "clear" with neither looking at the known sources nor assuming WP:AGF about them?  That is an interesting objection about a book printed by Ohio University Press, printed in Athens, Ohio, given that university presses are generally reliable.  How does someone self-publish with a university press?  Again, is there evidence of a problem that needs the attention of AfD?  Or is this claiming special rules that the sources don't count when they give WP:GNG-level attention to a small-town mayor?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The self-publishing issue refers to "Kuzma, Scott (2007). Republic of Kinney. Fargo, ND: Forum Communications Printing.", not "Nemanic, Mary Lou (2007). One day for democracy: Independence Day and the Americanization of Iron." The problem with Nemanic is that it just namechecks her existence in one paragraph on one page, without being about her in any manner remotely substantive enough to count as "GNG-level attention" — but Kuzma's book, not Nemanic's, is the self-published one. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 22 November 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.