Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary Corbin


 * 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. As with Articles for deletion/Irma Anderson, I cannot determine a consensus. Again, the evidence for keep is slim, but some coverage is there, and delete votes suffer a bit much from the difficulty of determining which size city is big enough. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Rosemary Corbin

 * – ( 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Non-notable politician; outdated article.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  ≈≈≈≈  16:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I disagree that local papers are "not independent enough" to contribute to notability for a biography.WP:N says "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent." Still I like to see more than local sources. WP:BIO cites the essay Independent sources which does not exclude local newspapers. If the subject were an organization, then WP:ORG would apply and it does require more than local sources:"On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." This is an inconsistency in our notability guidelines. Edison (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:16, 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) 16:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother to read the article? No.  If you did, you'd realize that this article is non-notable and should be deleted  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep notable as the first woman mayor of a this major industrial/port city of over 100K people. Local doesn't mean her own newsletter or blog, it means the press from the San Francisco Bay Area which is an enormous media market of well over 12 million.Luciferwildcat (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What does Richmond being a port city have to do with Corbin's notability?  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reread your comments and mine, it is clear from the context.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I found only routine coverage about her as mayor and city councilmember. I can't imagine what Luciferwildcat is referring to, putting forward a notability claim that is not found in the article and does not appear to be true. San Diego had a woman mayor in 1985, which predates this person elected in 1993 - and San Diego would seem to trump Richmond as a "major industrial/port city of over 100K people". --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * comment, she was the first woman mayor of Richmond and Richmond is a major port/industrial city, she is also generally notable.Luciferwildcat (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * comment pretty notable that she founded a national park.Luciferwildcat (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If she had actually "founded a national park" that would be a good argument. However, other women seem to get the primary credit for spearheading that national historic park, according to the park's Wikipedia article. It was founded while she was mayor, and she is now on the park's board, but her role doesn't seem to have been significant enough to make her notable on that basis. --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just not notable enough.  As I think I noted elsewhere, I think you need more than being a one term may in the 61st largest city of one of the US States.  Otherwise, you extrapolate that across 50 states, and 206 countries worldwide and we'd be drowning in articles on minor political careers. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * comment well this is about the notability of this woman, and that doesn't sound bad to me, wikipedia is not paper so no one would drown, if we have reliable independent sources for them all, why not?LuciferWildCat (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because of ANYBIO and POLITICIAN...  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete She fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN and no evidence has been provided of any significant coverage. She is briefly mentioned in a news article and listed as a member of a board of directors. Sionk (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Mayor of a city of significant size, she getting ample news coverage.   D r e a m Focus  18:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 100,000 for "significant size" is a purely arbitrary number. Does that mean the mayor of a city like Richmond with 104,000 is significant, an a mayor of a city with 96,000 isn't?  It doesn't work that way  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  21:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep As per WP:N section WP:NRVE, and unlike WP:V, it is not necessary that sources be cited in the article, it is only necessary that it be "likely" that they exist.  In this case, the SFGate archive appears to start in 1996, and has 80 references, but we can be entirely certain that in libraries around the Bay Area including the main library in San Francisco, there exist records of the Richmond mayor's election in 1993 that provide additional significant coverage.  Topic easily passes WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, and therefore WP:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 80 references, eh? How many of them provide more than a passive mention of Corbin?  Remember that in-depth coverage is needed  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  05:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not passive she's just been mentioned too many times.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This person has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Try this additional search:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Before yet another person points out how many Google hits this person has, they may want to re-read WP:PEOPLE, particularly 'Invalid criteria' which specifically says:
 * "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking) ...for most topics search engines cannot easily differentiate between useful references and mere text matches... When using a search engine to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links. Sionk (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, Google web searches often have lots of useless material. The archive search I reported is a specialized case in which most of the hits are wp:reliable.  Going on, sampling indicated to me that there was a high percentage of these articles that show the Mayor "attracting attention".  I did not mean to suggest that the finding of 80 potential references by itself defined notability.  It was more of an inference that suggested I had found a target-rich URL that was worth investigating, and also came with a conviction on my part that anyone that examined the list would discover sufficiently significant material to pass WP:GNG.  I.e., case closed with an overwhelming list of sources with more-than-trivial material.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the many sources as well not blind hits. This woman was not only mayor, she also served on many committees and other positions such as the Contra Costa Transit Authority, Richmond Main Street Initiative, Bay Trail Committee, Rosie the Riveter WWII Homefront National Historic Park and many others, the sources meet her notability as per WP:NRVE which says that the existence of sources proves notability as long as they are proven they don't even have to be incorporated with in line or in article mentions.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:27, 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.