Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon McShurley


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sharon McShurley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a mayor, in a city not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing. But all this actually does is state that she exists, and its only reference is a single comprehensive list in the local newspaper of all the city's past mayors -- a source that would support a list of the mayors, but doesn't singlehandedly represent enough significant press coverage to give each one a standalone bio under NPOL #2. For a mayor to get a standalone article, it needs to contain substance and a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of sourcing, not just to state that "she exists, the end". Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, while the article is woefully underdeveloped and sourced, the fact that she is the first woman mayor of a major municipality I think qualifies to put her over the WP:GNG threshold. I think the article of her successor, Dennis Tyler, is much more problematic from a notability standpoint.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't automatically accept the first woman mayor of every place that ever had mayors as getting an instant notability freebie just because she's female — and WP:GNG is a measure of the article's sourcing, not of any claim stated in the article's text. If she were the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear NPOL #2 (major local political figures who have received significant press coverage), then this would certainly be kept just the same as any other well-sourced mayor would (and would never even have been listed for AFD in the first place) — but the fact of being female doesn't automatically make her more notable than a man who otherwise has the same basic notability claim and the same depth of reliable sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As per the lede of WP:N, Wikipedia's notability is not based on fame or importance; and as per WP:NEXIST, GNG is not based on sourcing in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody in this discussion said that notability was based on fame or importance, and while GNG is not based on sourcing in the article per se, it is not enough to simply assert that enough sourcing to pass GNG might exist somewhere — anybody could simply say that about anything. To get an article kept despite the inadequacy of its existing quality of sourcing, it needs to be definitively shown that sufficient sourcing does exist: namely, by actually showing the hard results of an actual search for better sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL. There does not appear to be sufficient sourcing to suggest notability (i.e. national or international coverage of an otherwise low-profile individual. --Enos733 (talk) 06:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Where did you look for sourcing? Unscintillating (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Where did you? Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the article lacks adequate sourcing. Being the first female mayor of a given place is not a sign of notability, period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 25 November 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.