Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Lovell Stanners (2nd nomination)


 * 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. It is noted that a mayor of a city of this size is not automatically notable and there is a clear consensus that notability requirements, particularly WP:NPOL are not met. Just Chilling (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ruth Lovell Stanners
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor, not properly sourced as clearing WP:NPOL #2. I was the original creator here, a decade ago when our notability standards for mayors were much looser than they are now -- but under current standards, a city has to be much larger than Owen Sound before its mayors receive an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as mayors. The only sources here, however, are a single local news article about her wedding, and a single dead link about the election of her successor, which is not enough. First discussion, several years ago, landed "no consensus" because a couple of people laboured under the misconception that as long as news articles could be found that had her name in them, it didn't matter whether she was actually their subject or not -- most of the sources brought to bear as "evidence" of her notability were glancing namechecks of her existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage of other things or people, not notability-supporting coverage about her. So I let it slide at the time, and then entirely forgot about it -- but in the five years hence, it still hasn't been improved a whit, and the sources offered by the keep contingent in the first discussion don't offer anything substantive to improve it with either. The notability test that a smalltown mayor needs to pass is that she can be referenced to a depth and range and volume of coverage that marks her out as much more special than most other smalltown mayors, not just the ability to technically verify that she served as mayor. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete As I wrote in the first discussion, "The question is (usually) not about verifying information about the office - but is there "substantive" coverage of the life of the individual" (to determine whether a local, independently-elected mayor passes WP:NPOL). As a community, we prefer nationalization (or internationalization of coverage), especially for smalltown mayors, to show that the subject is worthy of notice in an international encyclopedia. --Enos733 (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Thus, the mayor of a town of 20,000 marrying is going to get coverage if there is a newspaper for that town or for the general region that tries to have any coverage of the town at all. Most mayors do not marry while in office, but it in no way adds to actual notability. Yet that is what this article largely turns on. There are way, way way too many places with over 20,000 people for us to consider every mayor of every such place notable, even if we limited it to places of 20,000 people or more that were also regionally signifant cities, that is had to be the largest place in their county etc or at least on par, thus excluding the thousands of suburbs just in the US alone that are truly small places with 20,000 in larger metro areas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Being candidate or mayor of Owen Sound, under current standards does not mean passes notability. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2019 (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.