Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Madoff


 * 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   no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Michelle Madoff

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography of a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors per WP:POLITICIAN. While this article does cite some sources, neither the volume of footnoting nor the geographic range of the sources (two local newspapers in her own city) are enough to get her past WP:GNG — and the substance of what they're supporting doesn't constitute a credible reason why she would warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia with an international readership. If this were Pittsburghpedia, I'd be all for it — but for a worldwide audience, we need stronger evidence of notability beyond Pittsburgh alone. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Pittsburgh is not big enough for city council members to have notability by default.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references currently in the article are probably just about enough to satisfy WP:GNG, and Google turns up plenty more similar news stories and obituaries. I'm not sure where the idea that GNG requires national or international significance comes from – if you think we shouldn't have articles on people with only local significance that's fair enough, but it's not (to the best of my knowledge) supported by any policy, guideline or consensus. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * GNG requires, at minimum, more coverage than this. Most of the articles are not about her as such, but merely mention her name in passing — which means that the volume of sourcing cited here fails the substantive coverage test. And yes, we do actually require some evidence of notability beyond the bounds of the purely local, which is why for example we exclude most city councillors from WP:POLITICIAN unless they somehow become notable to a wider range of readers and not just residents of one single city. It's not entirely impossible for a person of purely local notability to get past our notability gates, no — but we do set the standards for local notability quite high, because we simply don't have the human resources necessary to properly monitor thousands upon thousands of articles about local city councillors, fire chiefs, police chiefs and the like for WP:BLP compliance. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 14:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that what's in the article isn't enough for GNG, but it doesn't really matter because notability's not just about the sources currently in the article. In the first page of Google results we have three substantial obituaries: Post-Gazette, Tribune-Review and Jewish Chronicle – obviously not passing mentions. WP:POLITICIAN doesn't say anything about "a wider range of readers"; for local politicians all it asks for "significant press coverage". Again, if you think we ought to ask for coverage beyond local sources then that's totally reasonable and understandable, but it's not the guideline. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Substantial in-depth coverage here and here and here and here and here which meets the received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject test.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The article from the Latimes is not about Michelle Madoff but about Sophie Masloff.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right, thanks, I almost made off with the wrong Madoff, struck it out, so I added another in-depth source on hopefully the right one. :).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. People known only for membership of city councils don't usually warrant WP articles, and I don't see any real exception to be made here. Don't think the obits are strong enough, as they seem to focus on the asthma/local battle against air pollution that marked her time on the council. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment; I don't believe city council membership is sufficient to sufficient to establish notability, but I've lost that discussion before, and in Articles for deletion/Johnny Khamis, the article was kept even though the individual has no basis for notability other than serving as a San Jose council member. On the other hand, San Jose is about 3 times the size of Pittsburgh, and is the tenth-largest city in the US, compared to Pittsburgh, the 62nd. TJRC (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm satisfied that the existing sources and the ones listed here by Tomwsulcer meet sufficient coverage to establish notability. Tiller54 (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2014 (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.