Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindell Penn


 * 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. This article is significant coverage. This article (which should actually link here) is borderline significant, as is this one and this one (though this is just meeting minutes). This article just mentions her name. This one is just passing, as is this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one. This one is just election results, giving only a mention of her name. This one doesn't provide enough preview to know whether it's significant or not, but the headline leads me to believe it would be at least marginally significant. With the one article being no-question significant coverage, and two (plus the meeting minutes) being borderline significant, that tips the scales into notability here. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 01:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Mindell Penn

 * – ( 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Non-notable politician; outdated article.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  ≈≈≈≈  16:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be of interest to you that this person is in no Google Scholar articles, and only one Google Book; one that isn't independent of subject  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 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) 16:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This vote should be retracted, as it's clear the editor hasn't even bothered to read the article, and is voting to keep a load of cruft on this Wiki. This article, and all the other ones nominated in a similar matter, are permastubs created in a fly-by-night manner and should have been deleted years ago.  And it's by no means offensive to say local news doesn't count.  There are many items that are required in policy and/or supported by the consensus of editors.  What's offensive is your procedural keep vote  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See also above comment about lack of Google Books or Scholar articles  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete She only served for six years, and coverage was pretty minimal. --MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Coverage does not appear to be minimal, refer to the current sourcing in the article, which is rather extensive. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * procedural strong keep this is a bad faith nomination and no real effort has been made to verify if this councilwoman is notable or not. I reckon she is, as all the others have been. If not I think a creation of the Richmond City Council (Richmond, California) history section would be cool to incubate some of these, but if they are notable on their own a stub is ok until it is expanded. I am going to nominate them all for rescue.Luciferwildcat (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN spectacularly. No evidence of any notability. The 'procedural keep' votes seem bizarre, unless there is some history between these editors that I'm unaware of! Sionk (talk) 17:14, 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) 19:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This person meets WP:GNG, per coverage in reliable sources. See Google News search link below:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm, there aren't any sources in those links you provide to show if she's notable...  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By your own admission the is mentioned in those sources and they are many, and that meets the WP:Notability requirement for WP:GN General Notability, and per WP:NRVE the mere existence of sources is enough to quantify keeping the article, whether or not it is sourced at all in article. You should note that Jimmy Wales himself had a helluva time having an article about a local one-location restaurant in South Africa being kept under similarly narrow-minded deletionism oriented worldview or should I say wikiview.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I think you've got too much skin in this game.  Let it go, and stop throwing around the loaded term "narrow-minded deletionism".  Or start another meaningless ANI thread, or a thread on Jimbo's talk page.  Do whatever you want  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I think you've got too much skin in this game.  Let it go, and stop throwing around the loaded term "narrow-minded deletionism".  Or start another meaningless ANI thread, or a thread on Jimbo's talk page.  Do whatever you want  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I count 6 comments by Purpliebackpack in defense of his own nomination, and he's accusing others of "having too much skin in the game"?!?!? That excludes the badgering comments he made on my talk page in defense of this set of poorly conceived nominations... Seriously: make your nomination, state your evidence, and let it go... There are some real "ownership" issues showing in these nominations, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Here's a reference recently removed from the article by the nominator of this article for deletion:
 * Please consider leaving references in place while articles are in AfD. Removal of them appears to possibly be biased toward your stance to delete this article. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, Northamerica, the part that goes into detail about Penn, if there is one, is behind a paywall and therefore unacceptable as a reference  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you not aware of an entry point in WP:V called WP:PAYWALL? Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Got to agree with that one. The info just needs to be verifiable, not necessarily easily and conveniently with a weblink. However, the second 'bibliography' source is definitely only a mention of Penn's name on a list of councillors standing for re-election - not worthy of a 'bibliography', which is normally a list of books! I'm interested to know what source says Penn was the shortest ever Richmond council member. If that was attributable to a reliable source I may be convinced that, overall, Penn begins to creep close to being 'notable' in WP terms ... Sionk (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How does being the shortest person on a generally non-notable list make her notable?  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If it had been reported, it may have indicated a slightly more in depth report about Penn. But considering it has now been removed from the article, my original 'vote' for deletion still stands. Sionk (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * wp:notability exists independently of the existence of an article on WP or the content of any such article. Unscintillating (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * wp:notability exists independently of the existence of an article on WP or the content of any such article. Unscintillating (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural closure (see below) Keep  I added three references, topic satisfies WP:GNG.  It is easy to find quality references, use whatever tags you want, significant, in-depth, WP:GNG, reliable.  Even if the absence of notability were stipulated, there is no attempt being made here to refute the possibility of a merge, so as Carrite says in different words, this nomination is in the wrong venue.  That said, I suspect that the current article would fit better as part of List of Richmond City Council councilmembers.  I just needed to see one article from Havana, Cuba about this council to know that these people are far out of the norm in the US.  IMO we do not have a problem at Wikipedia of under-coverage of the Richmond City Council.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Relisted to enable further discussion, potentially including discussion about the new references.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nom comment: Even though a few "references" have been found, I still believe this article should be deleted. The basic argument is that because she was quoted in the local paper, she's notable.  Millions of people have been quoted in their local papers, and they're obviously not worthy of inclusion.  This person isn't either. This person wasn't mayor of her city, nor is her city a major city.  So she fails WP:POLITICIAN.  She hasn't done anything earth-shattering or won any awards.  So she fails WP:ANYBIO  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Another reference has been removed from the article here.  The edit comment to explain the removal is "Bibliography:  per WP:GNG source does not 'address the subject directly in detail' "  This particular article has a picture of Mindell Penn made by a Chronicle staff photographer on the day of the election, and Mindell Penn is one of the three incumbents being referenced in the title of the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's here why? The place to discuss content disputes, which that appears to be, is on the article's talk page.  But, for reference, I support Sionk's decision to remove the reference.  Tangential mentions here and there are not enough to justify passing GNG, and even if this article does pass GNG, that doesn't mean it automatically has to be kept  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment if an article meets GNG it must be kept as long as someone advocates for keep. All notable topics have a place here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nosir. That is not the case.  Just because an article meets GNG (and by the way, this one doesn't really), doesn't mean an automatic keep if only one person votes yes  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A topic can meet WP:GNG and not satisfy WP:N, it says so right in WP:GNG. However, as per WP:N, only extreme cases of failing notability are met with deletion.  In the current case, there is not even an argument being advanced to explain a case for non-notable or any other kind of deletion, not even WP:IAR.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed the part about it failing the specific guidelines of ANYBIO and POLITICIAN  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By the previous logic this topic is non-notable because it does not satisfy Notability (astronomical objects). But what our guideline at WP:N says is, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below... A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right."  And being non-notable is not by itself a cause for deletion.  There is no argument to be made that this case is "extreme", so even if we were to stipulate that this topic fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:POLITICIAN, we are still left with a nomination in the wrong venue.  The nominator has removed two more references from the article.  I am changing my !vote to Procedural closure.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, discussing the notability of a topic as part of a deletion discussion is exactly what AFD is for. Furthermore, your bringing astronomical objects, and your !vote of "procedural closure" both are nonsensical and indicate a lack of familiarity with the AFD process.  The references I removed were inappropriate to the article as they could neither be properly integrated nor were non-trivial  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Unscintillating, removing refernces is disruptive to an AfD and this topic has been demonstrated as notable by the sources that have shown.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I was pinged on my talk page to have another look at this. I agree that there are now more references in the article, but that doesn't help. All I see is routine announcements of winning a place on a local council and resigning. is something different, but the subject is mentioned only once in passing. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity..." WP:GNG explains "significant coverage" as follows: " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."  The point is that whether you define routine as "non-extraordinary", or routine as "automatically covered", you make no case for failing WP:N when you use the term "routine".  Also, your position continues to ignore that, as per WP:ATD and WP:N, we don't delete articles with encyclopedic material just because the topic is non-notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I, on the other hand, see nice improvement of the sourcing and believe this is a biography that passes muster under General Notability Guidelines. No one would argue that this is definitive — it's a short piece on a minor politician. Still, detail is accurate and verifiable and the piece as it stands is a basis for further work as the subject's career progresses and more material becomes available. Procedural objections as to the form of the initial nomination, but I'm striking my Procedural Keep recommendation and changing it to a full Keep based on the work done by Unscintillating and others. Wikipedia is better with this piece than without it. Carrite (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing admin note that editor struck out Keep vote above, and replaced it with Keep vote here  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  01:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Closing administrator note that I actually upgraded a "Procedural Keep" to a full "Keep," debolding and striking the earlier incarnation, as appropriate. Also note that the nominator, including this statement of the obvious, has made SEVENTEEN comments about this one nomination. And counting... Carrite (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Sorry if I refactored the bolded comment above on accident, it's hard figuring out where the nominator's signature ends with its three lines of code...
 * So? Nothing wrong with debating editors' assertions, especially if they're unfounded. Nothing wrong with having a signature with three links of at least 16 characters.  I fixed the signature (and that's 18)  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  20:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I was pinged on my talk page to take another look. Despite a couple of mentions in regional media, mostly of the "so-and-so was elected" or "so-and-so resigned" variety, I still find her to be insufficiently notable for inclusion here. My "delete" !vote stands. --MelanieN (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I was asked to comment again but strongly believe the anti-deletion campaign are wasting everyone's time. As well as repeatedly redlinking another non-notable councillor they are constantly re-adding non-notable mentions, and repeatedly describing a news item archived from the San Fransisco Chronicle as 'national' coverage. In effect, because of Penn's unusual name, if there was any coverage of any note it could be discovered reasonably easily. Most of the citations refer to Penn being elected (that is a given for councillors) and resigning for family reasons. Her only noticeable actions appear to be co-sponsoring an ordinance and improving the city's rental home inspection program. For 6 years service that seems to be a miserable record.Sionk (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, just added a new source with some information that I believe gives yet even more credibility to her notability.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nom comment: It's been a week, and we're right back where we started. The only change is that Carrite moved his keep vote.  Most people who voted delete reaffirmed their vote.  I personally believe this is still a gots-to-go, as this person's "references" are still generally trivial, and it still fails ANYBIO and POLITICIAN.  Unfortunately, it looks like we're headed for a meaningless no-consensus  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note the preceding comment was moved below a more recent one and that should not imply that this debate has been free of discussion.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion..."retrenchment" would be the proper word. Since the relist, the only comments have been editors reaffirming previous positions.  No one has changed their mind, no one new has come to the discussion.  So, yeah, it kinda has since the relist  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * comment it has not been free of comments since the delisting not matter what my counterpart here is claiming. In fact I made a comment on having found and implemented new material today.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, if you looked at what I said, you'd have noticed I said there were no new votes, not no new comments  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  02:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "vote" is not present in this sentence "Discussion..."retrenchment" would be the proper word. Since the relist, the only comments have been editors reaffirming previous positions. No one has changed their mind, no one new has come to the discussion. So, yeah, it kinda has since the relist". Therefore that statement is false.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait...now my statement is false...because somebody has voted delete  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional references
 * Comment – a list of current references in the article, for an objective analysis of sources:
 * a b c d e Cecilia M. Vega (June 1, 2005). "Richmond. Councilwoman says she will resign". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. p. B.5. Retrieved 2011-12-15. "Councilwoman Mindell Lewis Penn...will resign at the end of the month...move to Detroit to be with her elderly mother. Penn, 60, was first elected...in 1999 and re-elected in November."
 * a b c Finances, Jobs, Safety Top Issues in Richmond Race, J. Douglas Allen-Taylor, Berkeley Daily Planet, 20-08-2004, access date 23-12-2011
 * "News Archives - sacbee.com. Urban League board elected". Sacramento Bee. nl.newsbank.com. November 5, 1991. p. B3. Retrieved 2011-12-15. "Mindell Penn has been elected to a second term as chairwoman of the Sacramento Urban League board of directors. Penn, administrator of small business affairs for Pacific Gas and Electric Co..."
 * "Rosie the Riveter Memorial Project History". US National Park Service. Rosie the Riveter Trust. Retrieved 2011-12-20. "panel...formed...on January 16, 1998. The Rosie the Riveter Selection Panel consists of...businesswoman Mindell Penn..."
 * "Vision and strategic plan". US National Park Service. Rosie the Riveter Trust. June 11, 2005. pp. 20-21. Retrieved 2011-12-20. "She currently serves as First Vice-President on the BWOPA State Board of Directors, the Contra Costa County Community College Board of Trustees, and the Rosie the Riveter Trust Board of Directors. In 2002, she retired from Pacific Gas and Electric Company as Director of Government Relations, Contra Costa County."
 * a b c d e Meredith May, Chronicle staff writer (November 4, 1999). "Politics take an unusual turn in Richmond. Consultant's iron grip collapses". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. Retrieved 2011-12-10. "The most popular candidate, newcomer Mindell Penn, wore a power-red blazer in campaign mailers with her picture above the slogan, 'My vote will never be for sale.' "
 * "City contests for Contra Costa County, CA". League of Women Voters of California Education Fund. December 6, 2004. Retrieved 2011-12-16.
 * "CC01MAR2005.pdf". City of Richmond. March 1, 2005. p. 2. Retrieved 2011-12-18. "Consent calendar...ORDINANCE – regarding the Slavery Era Disclosure Act and disclosure and divestment of investment earnings from City-sponsored Pension Funds or Investment Funds from financial and insurance institutions that benefit from international investment in slavery – Second Reading – Councilmember Penn and Viramontes (620-6513)."
 * a b Jason B. Johnson, Chronicle staff writer (March 12, 2005). "EAST BAY. Firms that profited from slavery reviewed. Richmond, Oakland consider early step to seeking reparations.". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. Retrieved 2011-12-20. "Some activists are hopeful these laws may one day help secure reparations for African Americans."
 * Jason B. Johnson, San Francisco Chronicle (March 21, 2005). "2 California cities look at profits from slavery. Movement may lead to restitution payments". Salt Lake City: Deseret News. Retrieved 2011-12-18. "Richmond Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who proposed the measure along with fellow Councilwoman Mindell Penn, said the city's new law was inspired by the events in Chicago..."
 * San Francisco Chronicle (March 21, 2005). "Firms that profited from slavery reviewed". South Carolina: Beaufort Gazette. Retrieved 2011-12-18.
 * "CC05JUNE21.pdf". City of Richmond. June 21, 2005. p. 2. Retrieved 2011-12-18. "Councilmember Penn announced that this would be her last meeting as a City Councilmember."
 * Cecilia M. Vega, Chronicle staff writer (November 3, 2004). "Richmond. Richmond sticks with 3 council members". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. p. B8. Retrieved 2011-12-15. "Mindell Lewis Penn waits along with...Chronicle photo by..." (picture of Mindell Penn on election day 2004)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that two of the delete !votes were removing references from the article, here are two removed with the edit comment, "(Additional references: rm trivial references that have no relevance to the article's content)".  IMO, this edit comment is incorrect because (1) trivial references are those such as mentions in a phone book and anything that is not trivial counts as part of significant coverage, and (2) one of the sources is part of the sourcing for the article.  A third reference has been restored, but PBP has yet to apologize for claiming that it is ok to remove references published behind paywalls.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I will not apologize for removing references that cannot be properly integrated into the article and do not amount to more than trivial coverage. Unscintillating has a history of placing these junk references in articles in faulty attempts to save them  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – References from reliable sources serve to qualify topic notability, while the removal of them serves to hide topic notability from others considering this topic's notability. I consider it rather poor form for a nominator of an article for deletion to remove them. After all, if the article were to be deleted regardless, then the added references would be too. New references can allow for the expansion of Wikipedia articles. Removal of them isn't useful to the project. Also note that per WP:BASIC, "trivial coverage" that you assert may be used to qualify topic notability per a quantity of stated trivial coverage. I also don't view this paywalled link as trivial:, as it appears to be entirely about Mindell Penn and her plan to improve Richmond'd rental home inspection system. Paywalled sources are acceptable, per WP:PAYWALL. Please leave coverage from reliable sources in place. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it to be more than routine local coverage, and besides, just because this is at AfD doesn't entitle anyone to place a bunch of bad references in an article. Also note that I am not the only person to remove content during this AfD  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  20:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As per GNG, it is significant coverage if it is more than trivial, and as such it is. Routine non-trivial material is significant coverage and as it is stated in GNG it meets GNG. If something meets GNG it is therefore notable as it has references to meet GNG. There is no such thing as a bad references. There are relevant references to the topic and that is what I see has been added.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You simply saying that they're non-trivial does not make them non-trivial  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As per GNG, it is significant coverage if it is more than trivial, and as such it is. Routine non-trivial material is significant coverage and as it is stated in GNG it meets GNG. If something meets GNG it is therefore notable as it has references to meet GNG. There is no such thing as a bad references. There are relevant references to the topic and that is what I see has been added.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You simply saying that they're non-trivial does not make them non-trivial  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete routine coverage of a local politician in a small city. None of these events are notable individually or collectively, nor is her career anything special accept perhaps for her ability to attract local press coverage. The criterion for notability -- the true criterion -- is what is worth covering in a comprehensive encyclopedia . Local references do not make for notability.  What would amount to notability is extensive significant national coverage from outside her region. Or a national level award. Or a notable  book or film by or about her. Any number of minor things does not add up to something major. Sponsoring any number of local bills or political acts is not the equivalent of sponsoring even a single  national one.  As an analogy, a long career in the minor leagues is not the same as even a very short career in the majors.    DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The personal opinion of what makes a small town politician should be disregarded by the closing admin. As it ignores the fact that the references are in reliable sources. The San Francisco Chronicle is not a "local" reference. It's a major newspaper. And the city is not small. It has over 100,000 people and is a major industrial and port city. The common outcome for politicians for this city is to keep.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * DGG, you fail to note that the notability guideline you are using is WP:IAR. Your entire post is an opinion essay, and a not-especially useful one since you don't relate your position to the existing standards.  As a paperless encyclopedia with no known limits for server space, we don't restrict ourselves to Elite-opedia, we carry topics that are encyclopedic, not just those that are "major".  You try the same word "routine" that has been attempted by others, but the answer is the same, WP:GNG considers "routine" coverage to be just fine, in fact each piece of routine coverage adds to notability.  Like the rest of your post that floats free of policy considerations, your delete !vote does not explain why the material here should not be merged, as per WP:N and our WP:Deletion policy at WP:ATD, policy that WP:PRESERVEs the good-faith contributions of other editors and the content of the encyclopedia.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 07:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Unscintillating, what his "notability guideline" amounts to is using POLITICIAN and ANYBIO instead of GNG. There is more than personal opinion behind his vote.  This article may pass GNG, but it's clear to a number of editors that this article is nowhere close to meeting either of those.  GNG doesn't really consider routine coverage to lead to passage of GNG; consider that elementary schools that often get routine coverage are nearly always deleted.  Deleting an article on a minor City Councilwoman who was never mayor should be routine cleanup, and it by no means turns us in to "Elite-pedia".  Note to closing admin: The only editor who has added a new opinion since the relist has voted delete  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't pick and choose which notability criteria you want to use. If an article meets any of them, they are notable. If they are notable they should be kept, because if an article meets the notability criteria it should be kept. Anything said to the contrary is a misrepresentation of policy and is personal opinion and nothing else. What GNG "doesn't" do as you stated is your opinion and not the general consensus nor literal definition of GNG. GNG states basically that one one end a topic may have two in depth reliable sources or on the other end many routine sources, although much more are needed. In Penn's case we are in the middle of that continuum and based solely on GN and the sources presented we should keep. The comment about schools is irrelevant per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and schools are not comparable to general notability nor BLPs. Your opinion that she is minor or that she was never mayor is irrelevent. Most people with a wikipedia article were never elected to office and were never mayor of anything, so that proves nothing. The sources on Ms. Penn however show general notability because "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The sources clearly demonstrate more than trivial coverage.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You and Unscintillating seem to forget that specific guidelines exist for a reason and that it's not OK to just ignore them... Also, just because something passes GNG by a hair doesn't mean an auto keep  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does, and if by the nominators own admission it meets GNG we should speedy close and keep. However it meets GNG by much more than a hair, GNG states that significant coverage does not have to be the main topic of an article, it simply must not be a trivial passing mention. The sources for this article meet that numerous times over.


 * Comment one last thing the nominator cited the following for deleting: "Non-notable politician; outdated article. Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough.". The nominator themself have admitted that the topic is notable per GNG. The datedness of the article is not a measure of notability and regardless has been thoroughly updated. The sources are independent as they are third parties unrelated to the subject. That is the measure of independence. The San Francisco Chronicle, Beaufort Gazette, Sacramento Bee, and Berkeley Daily Planet for example are not owned by Penn, nor is she employed by them. They are also not local, as none of them are the Richmond Globe or Richmond Confidential or West County Times. Although every newspaper has a local market she has received more than trivial coverage in newspapers throughout the state and even out of state. So the politician is notable and up to date which are all entirely independent of the subject. The logic for deletion by the nominator is therefore incorrect and flawed and the article should be kept or at very least merged into the city council article.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:27, 27 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.