Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Linda Cohen


 * That the article was deleted while I was typing my response is typical. That no one can be bothered to actually read the policies is also to be expected. But I'll post my reply here anyway.
 * The specific activities of a politician are content issues (weight). What we think of as the importance of a person or their activities is not relevant for notability and should not be considered. It is true that her life events are themselves not individually notable and would not merit articles, but that doesn't mean she doesn't. Notability is not inherited.
 * From WP:NOTE, the most basic definition of notability: a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either (1) the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline, and (2) it is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. The guideline is very clear that their are multiple ways to be included. They could fail one of GNG and NPOL, but still be included. The GNG does not have any requirement for global influence so anyone supporting on those terms need not prove that there is. No one is arguing that the sources are not reliable, not verifiable, not secondary, not independent, or that the article represents and indiscriminate collection of information. The only debate pertaining to the GNG is whether there is "significant" coverage and whether or not this constitutes news (routine coverage). It takes a significant stretch of the guidelines to call a biography that is not primarily about any particular events to be either news or routine. And there are lots of qualifying sources, enough to just pass the requirement for significant coverage. So it passes the GNG and is thus acceptable for inclusion.
 * Even when considering locality, it is clear that she has statewide coverage, even if that is a local topic within statewide press, it is still statewide. At best this is an ambiguous case, so basing deletion of an article on such an ambiguous point seems highly deletionist.
 * The term "enduring notability" is not being used properly. From the primary notability guideline: Notability is not temporary. This does not mean she must have ongoing influence or importance. If she has significant coverage, the future doesn't matter. If no one wrote anything more about her forever, she would still be notable. That's the point of enduring notability, it can't be revoked. You can't say a person is not notable because they don't have enduring notability. That doesn't make any sense. It's descriptive, not prescriptive.
 * That there is a populist tradition of not following the guidelines and deleting articles under overly strict interpretations does not sway me in the least, nor should it.
 * -- RM 19:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think there is compelling evidence that this was incorrectly closed. There are competing ideas on notability and those were expressed in the discussion by many editors. I think no consensus was found.--TM 19:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The primary reason for deletion was not be based on the primary governing policy on notability or the applicable subject-specific guideline, but rather loosely related event-based policies. At least we could have the typical kangaroo court with a "delete does not meet GNG or NPOL" while completely ignoring those who want to keep. -- RM 20:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)