Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindi Messmer


 * 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Mindi Messmer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Messmer does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements WP:N for a politician / sub-national legislator which states that, "Sub-national legislators: Any current or former member of a sub-national legislative body, where the subnational unit is either not a part of a larger subnational unit or where the population of the subnational unit is at least 5,000,000; and either the member represents at least 500,000 people, or the average member in the body represents at least 250,000 people." -- Messmer is one of 400 state representatives in New Hampshire, where the entire population of the State of New Hampshire is only approximately 1.3 million people; this means that she does not represent at least 250,000 people required by Wikipedia, i.e., Messmer represents approximately 3,250 people as a state representative (1.3 million divided by 400 equals 3,250 per representative). 204.58.32.254 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh 666 22:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination is citing Notability (politicians) which is a failed proposal. The actual notability guideline is at WP:NPOL, which reads: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep- I understand that that New Hampshire's legislators is unusually large. However, we generally do have article about state legislatures on here and I think it meets the standard for politicians as mentioned above. That said, the article needs a major rewrite because it sounds like a campaign ad.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete [Revote struck]. Article does not meet notability requirements.  Wikipedia User Patar knight cites WP:NPOL, but fails to mention section three which states:  "3.Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"."  Here, the subject has not been covered in significant reliable sources . . . just being a candidate for Congress is not enough to meet the notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.32.254 (talk)
 * NPOL #3's provision regarding "elected local officials" refers to politicians at the municipal level of government, such as mayors, city councillors, county supervisors or school board trustees. Members of a state legislature are state-level officeholders who are covered by NPOL #1. Also, the nomination statement at the top of the page came from you in the first place, even though somebody else technically had to complete the nomination process for you — so you can still comment in the discussion if you wish, but you do not get to cast a second "vote" in addition to your original nomination statement. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. As has been noted above, WP:NPOL does not guarantee or rule out notability in cases like these. Keep by WP:SIGCOV to which NPOL also refers. gidonb (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seems to be a politically motivated attempt going to remove this person's page. Person is a candidate for the US Congress, and this page seems targeted for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.174.7 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:NPOL btw to the ip above, a state elected official is not "an elected local official". Coolabahapple (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Members of a state legislature have a straight, clean pass of WP:NPOL #1. Our inclusion criteria for state legislators are not governed by the number of votes the person did or didn't receive or the population size of their electoral district — that was proposed once at the place the nominator cites, yes, but the proposal failed and that document does not represent an accurate summary of Wikipedia's actual inclusion standard for state legislators. Our actual inclusion standard for state legislators, rather, is spelled out at Notability (people), point #1: they're in as long as their holding of the office can be properly verified, regardless of the population of their individual district — this does need some sourcing improvement and content modification, yes, but it does satisfy the actual inclusion standard. For the record, I've also filed an RM request at Wikipedia talk:Notability (politicians) to have the page moved to a title that makes its inactive status clearer, so that the existing title (which is deceptive, as it does sound like the title of an active notability guideline rather than a failed one) can be repointed to WP:NPOL instead. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Members of a state or provincial legislature pass WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as mentioned above, the proposal cited for the deletion was a failed proposal. Considering how huge the New Hampshire House is (it has more members than the US house in a state with only 2 members in the US house), I have always wondered if it really makes sense to consider all members of the New Hampshire house notable. However, if we are going to back down from such a view, we need to come up with a new standard, and apply it across the board, not start picking off articles on specific individuals. On the whole though, I think the top ranked sub-national legislatures, at least in countries that are federal in nature as opposed to unitary, thus those in the legislative bodies of India, Nigeria, Germany, the United States, Mexico, Brazil and several other countries, is a reasonable level to cut off, while holding most candidates non-notable. Elected officials will get coverage for their actions in the legislature. I do have to point out that some countries, such as Ghana, we have a major lack of articles even on current members of the national legislature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete the New Hampshire State House, due to its unusually large size compared to the state population, should be an exception to the presumed notability in WP:NPOL. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the idea of a special New Hampshire-specific exception to the rule that would pertain in all 49 other states and all Canadian provinces and all Australian states and on and so forth. Given that we don't really have very many New Hampshire-based editors making a particularly active effort to get all the redlinks blued in very promptly, I fail to see why the number of seats in that body needs to be treated as a special problem that requires special exceptions to NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2017 (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.