Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizette Parker (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Spartaz Humbug! 09:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Lizette Parker[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lizette Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The sourcing is very weak and relies on obituaries in local newspapers. The result of the previous discussion was "no consensus". The keep arguments were based on the fact that she was Teaneck's first african-american mayor. I do not believe that being the first mayor of any race in a particular town is notable by itself. If she were the first african-american mayor anywhere in the state, then yes (but she is not). It also should be mentioned that Teaneck does not directly elect its mayors, they are appointed by the council among its members. Rusf10 (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[]

Her death was reported by the Associated Press, an international organization. --RAN (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[]
@Enigmaman:1. She was not the first african-american female mayor in the United States or even New Jersey Unless you are suggesting that her race and gender create automatic notability (which to my knowledge they do not) 2. The result of previous discussion was not keep, it was "no consensus". Six months is more than a reasonable amount of time to revisit a "no consensus" discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[]
I didn't say she was the first. Enigmamsg 16:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[]
She wasn't even "one of the first". And incidentally, relisting a page for another discussion after a few months is an entirely appropriate response to a "no consensus" closure — it's not malfeasance, but standard practice to revisit discussions that didn't close with a clear keep or delete the first time. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Her death was reported by the Associated Press, an international organization. --RAN (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[]
If the Associated Press had devoted ongoing coverage to her political career while she was alive, that would be evidence of notability — but smalltown political figures do not instantly clear the extralocal coverage condition the very moment one piece of more than local coverage exists. It still takes evidence of ongoing nationalized media attention, not just a single shot of WP:BIO1E juice. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Your argument would make sense only if you could show me that the AP gave obituaries to every other mayor who died in the United States over the past 50 years. WP:GNG makes no distinction between biographies and obituaries. --RAN (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[]
If the volume of sourcing shown here is enough to make Parker notable, then every single person who's ever been mayor of anywhere at all is equally notable — because in the entire sweep of human history, not one single solitary mayor of anywhere has ever lacked for every bit as much or more sourceability as this. Mayors of towns this size are not all deemed automatically notable just for existing, however — and if a class of topic is not "inherently" notable, then getting a member of that class of topic in the door most definitely does require evidence that she's significantly more notable than the her other peers that we aren't accepting as notable. I am 100 per cent correct about how wikinotability works for smalltown mayors — it is not "some local media coverage of her exists", because every mayor of everywhere can always say the same. It is a question of whether or not she can be shown as significantly more notable than most other smalltown mayors, by virtue of being sourceable to more coverage than most other smalltown mayors get. If this amount of coverage is enough to make Parker notable, then there's no such thing as a non-notable mayor at all anymore, because there's never been a single mayor of anywhere who couldn't show as much sourcing as this.

Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Her death was reported by the Associated Press, an international organization. If Bearcat gets an obit by the Associated Press, I will write their Wikipedia entry myself. --RAN (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Thank you for your response. I don't really have a problem with nearly all mayors being includable in the encyclopedia, given they satisfy WP:CCPOL and the article satisfies WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, etc. For me, I would be ambivalent about a living politician with only local coverage because of those two sections of NOT. But when a person is passed, I'm less concerned about restricting our definition of encyclopedic based on the population of a persons city or the circulation of the paper used as a source (assuming the paper is likely RS). CCPOL and NOT strike me as a decent enough guides in these cases. If one too many pokemon critters or minor league shortstops or small town politicians have an article, well WP:NOTPAPER. I understand that the consensus view, which you may well be 100 per cent correct about, is more restrictive than this, so I don't !vote on every case. But I did !vote on this one because I do think she is a suitable subject for an article. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia keeping an article about every single mayor who ever mayored in all of human history would be absolutely unsustainable and umaintainable — even with "inherent" NPOL notability restricted to state or national legislators, we still aren't doing a very good job of actually keeping those articles clean and current and well-sourced, let alone adding thousands more people to the "inherently notable" queue for politicians. So the rule for mayors has always been, and should rightly continue to be, that they are notable enough for articles only if they can demonstrate a credible claim to their mayoralties having notability beyond just the bounds of their own local area — i.e. major cities whose politics are demonstrably of broad reader interest, and maybe the odd smalltown mayor here and there who can be especially well-sourced to much more than just routine local obituaries. That's not what the sources here are demonstrating, however. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Thanks again for your point. To me, the concern that leniency in classifying a subject as suitable for an article will lead to an unsustainable number of articles is a concern about a hypothetical issue - we simply don't have a problem with too many local interest articles at wikipedia. I remember when wikipedia included unsourced technical specifications about tech hardware and an articles about every pokemon critter. There were users enough interested in these things that the articles were more or less NPOV and factually correct (or fictionally as the case may be). They did fail NOR and V and parts of NOT and have since been deleted or re-worked. This page on Parker didn't have vandalism (no vandalism in 2 years and 1,800 page views since creation), V, NPOV, or NOR problems prior to the AfD. Being open to including local public figures can lead to abuse; and certainly does when we see articles about candidates and politicians (issues about whitewashing pages about people, especially living ones, have been discussed - see Twitter:congressedits). Its existence is evidence that we have users enough to support such articles. We don't have a great backlog at unreferenced BLP (Category:Unreferenced BLPs). Our NPOV backlog underestimates the problem, but it is also reasonable (Category:NPOV disputes). As I said before, you may be right about what the rule for mayors has always been and should continue to be, and I don't weigh in on every case. But I did weigh in on this one because I see her case as especially reasonable (Category:NPOV disputes). Note that we do have difficult to handle backlogs at NPP/AFC, and we have had some research into the issue and proposed solutions (meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial).
To address the question by SportingFlyer below, which I interpret as a request for more particular detail explaining keep !votes, beyond satisfying V/NPOV/NOR, I think that the headlines of obituaries of her call her "History making" and "groundbreaking" are good indicators of suitability - a point that Bearcat and RAN argued about at the last AfD (which had at least one SP !vote keep). I would reconsider my !vote if it were clear that those obituary headlines were not independent of the subject, for instance. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[]
If (and that's a big if) it's true that we don't have a huge problem with too many local interest articles as Wikipedia, it certainly isn't that people aren't trying to flood Wikipedia with local interest articles — they are, and constantly at that — it's that we normally delete them when they come to AFD. On any given day, however, AFD is literally flooded with discussions about people, places and things that have no substantively extralocal claim of notability at all: smalltown mayors, city councillors, library and parks and transportation and school board members, residential cul-de-sacs and side streets, restaurants, furniture stores, winners of high school poetry contests, bands who have never accomplished anything more than playing their local pub twice, single-station local radio and television personalities, fire and police chiefs, and on and so forth, are things that people try to create Wikipedia articles about all the time. So it's far from a hypothetical issue — it's a real issue that already happens far, far more than it's supposed to. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Sorry for the slow response. You asked if we have a problem with too many local interest articles being created. I'm particularly interested in biographies, and think given the discussion so far, it would be ok to focus on politicians. In AfDs created during March 2018, I count 62 AfDs deletion-sorted into Politicians-related deletion discussions which were deleted (70%), 16 which were kept (18%), and 4 which were closed without consensus (4.5%), 5 with redirect (5.6%), 2 withdrawn (2.2%), and 0 with merge or other results (89 total articles, some of the deleted AfDs were multiple article AfDs, none of the kepts or no consensues were). That is a bit under 3 AfDs per day. Since politicians were included as a sorting category in 2008, I count 3,356 such articles were closed as delete (60%), 1,263 as keep (22%), 319 as no consensus (6%) (other outcomes exist as well, of course, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians/archive). The months with the most submissions were October 2016 with 95, July 2014 with 92, and March 2018 with 89. Over the past few years the total number of submissions per year has been growing slowly, with 799 last year (also a bit under 3 per day). This may seem like a flood, but the rate has been above 1 per day since 2010 and there hasn't, to my mind, been a great jump in the rate. Personally, I do not think 2 to 3 per day on average is a flood. I also think a deletion rate of 60% to 70% for these types of articles is a rate consistent with a large proportion of these types of articles being submitted in good faith as an attempt to add encyclopedic content to wikipedia. Full disclosure, I !voted at three of these, !voting keep on all three, contributing to two of them, and all three were kept. Bearcat, you !voted on nearly all of them - I did not count how often you !voted which way. For comparison, looking at articles deletion-sorted into bands and musicians, 4139 out of 22149 (18.7%) have been kept since that sorting started in September 2007 and about 5.6 articles are submitted per day sorted into that category. I rarely !vote on articles in that category. I agree that in total, there is a flood of articles submitted to AfD (between 50 and 100 most days, I think), and a majority of articles are and should be deleted (I don't pile on with my !votes so I skip a lot of clear deletes, but I still !vote delete about 50% of the time). I apologize that this comment is so off-topic and, as before, welcome follow ups not about Parker to continue elsewhere. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[]
The issue I have with the obituaries calling her "historical" or "groundbreaking?" There's no other reliable sources I can find which discuss this fact during her life! She is notable at best for being a small-town mayor who died in office. Based on the available sourcing, this is going to be kept or no-contested because she died. I'm really fascinated by this AfD for this precise reason, since this means you could argue anyone who had an independently written obituary could pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 01:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[]
I think this (or these) trains of thought have gotten a bit off track for this AfD. Feel free to disagree, but if anyone wants to continue a conversation on these lines, I think we should do so elsewhere. I'd be happy to discuss at my talk page, or (if pinged) somewhere else appropriate. Thanks again for your thoughts and insights. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Unfortunately, I do still disagree: whether obituaries make someone notable in the absence of other sources is the key issue here. SportingFlyer talk 05:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Then lobby to have those changes incorporated into WP:GNG instead of making ad hoc arguments at each entry. --RAN (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[]
You wrote: "then every single person who's ever been mayor of anywhere at all is equally notable" that is a good argument that mayors have inherent notability, maybe they should all have articles. However, if you can only write a paragraph, we bundle those short biographies into lists. See Mayors of Teaneck, New_Jersey. --RAN (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Lists of politicians on Wikipedia are not expanded into extended biographical dictionaries of all the list entries. If a person does not qualify to have their own biographical article about them stand alone as its own independent article, then they do not qualify to have the equivalent of a full biographical article about them pasted into a list in lieu of an independent article either. And no, mayors should not all have articles, either — a mayor's notability should remain dependent on whether their mayoralty is the subject of wider reader and source interest beyond just their own hometown, because Wikipedia keeping an article about every person who was ever mayor of anywhere would be an utterly unsustainable endeavour. We're not even doing an adequate job of properly maintaining the politicians we already accept as "inherently" notable now, let alone adding hundreds of thousands more people to that bucket. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Of course, the above claim contravenes policy which statesno rule which establishes that someone who is potentially not notable enough to warrant their own article can never be covered with regard to their biographical details in any article. Nor is there even a presumption that any details pertaining to them should not be covered if they fail GNG or NWHATEVER. and WP:AVOIDSPLIT which says: "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. It is not uncommon for editors to suggest that articles nominated for deletion instead be merged into a parent article. Note that notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list."Djflem (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[]

WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". The guideline makes no distinction between biographies and obituaries. There is nothing in the wording constraining the geographic circulation of the reliable source, as if there was such a thing, since we now distribute media through the Internet. --RAN (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Thank you. The problem here is the obituaries are actually trivial. The Nj.com article is only eight sentences long. The Root and New York Post articles are even shorter. There's a good article about her funeral, granted. Obituaries cannot on their own establish notability: everyone dies, and even though a number of local papers picked up a four- or five-sentence article about her death, there's really no coverage of her being notable in her life in a way that would satisfy either WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[]
I do not see a trivia exclusion in the guideline, only a requirement for "significant coverage", which is clearly defined in the guideline. "Everyone dies" but not everyone gets an obituary, you are confusing a paid funeral notice with an obituary. Some papers do obits for prominent local citizens, but that would be one reference. The GNG requires multiple ones, Lizette Parker has met that requirement. --RAN (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[]
It's not significant coverage, though. Multiple papers ran trivial obituaries, including the ones linked in the article as it stands. Trivial coverage is the opposite of significant coverage. SportingFlyer talk 03:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[]
From WP:BASIC"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" (emphasis mine)--Rusf10 (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[]
"Significant coverage" is well defined and objective, "trivial coverage" is left undefined and subjective, which is why you get to use it in almost every argument for deletion. --RAN (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[]
This is going off the rails as an argument. All we have here are eight-sentence obituaries which got picked up by a smattering of local media. While multiple newspapers ran with it, it's effectively one source, though voters are claiming it's "sufficient" or "significant coverage." Significant coverage also only presumes notability. To me, someone who died who would not otherwise pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL doesn't get that presumption, even assuming the coverage is significant. Also, a couple interesting reads on obituary notability: [1] [2] It's frustrating to me everyone's assuming she passes WP:GNG when there's a larger argument to make here. SportingFlyer talk 15:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[]
"Very similar" does not mean identical, see above argument. All the biographies I have read on Abraham Lincoln are disturbingly similar, they discuss his parents and his birth, his law school education, his marriage, the civil war, and his assassination. They are all very eerily similar, and they all curiously put the facts in the same exact order. Someone should look into this. --RAN (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Comparing a small town mayor to the president of the United States is like comparing apples to oranges. Unlike Parker, Lincoln already had plenty written about him before he died.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[]
What the hell is wrong with you? I already explained above the previous discussion was closed "No consensus". Six months is more than a reasonable amount of time to revisit. All you do here is follow me around anyway.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[]
I do a lot of AfDs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Considered to be routine: "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs ... sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc." I think you are the one "majory [sic] misinterpreting" the guideline. When an editor just points to a guideline without quoting from it, it usually means they have not read it, just memorized the acronym. Please do not argue that all mentions of Lizette Parker are covered by the "etc." Then I will have to argue that "etc." could mean information on popes and presidents. --RAN (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Eight-sentence obituaries are the definition of routine. SportingFlyer talk 05:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[]
By all means lobby to have the definition changed so that it includes the eight-sentence rule. 8 (sentences) x 19 (references) = 152 (sentences, if they all were 8 sentences). The first AP obit I got on my phone for Barbara Bush was just 6 sentences, followed by a much longer one an hour later. Lizette Parker had 8 sentences, followed by longer ones for her funeral. --RAN (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[]
False claim, see Wikipedia:AUD: The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. 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, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. Clearly more than "at least one", with much regional and national coverage.Djflem (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[]
This surely will be ignored by the admin as it has been every time Unscintillating has used it in the past, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unscintillating--Rusf10 (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Stop trying to carve out special criteria. If we were to take just take the category mayors who die in office, it probably has very few members, but that doesn't make someone notable just because they died in office. Also nearly 30% of Teaneck is black, a fact you obviously didn't know.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[]
One also acknowledges that in the NY metro area (which has 100s of municipalities) or nationally, not all mayors who die in office, who are women, who are black get extensive news coverage from flagship stations of national networks such as Parker did on WABC-TV, WCBS-TV, WNBC & the previously mentioned AP Djflem (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[]
It's local news, she died in office, not that many mayors die in office, so it gets covered. However, if someone is really notable why wouldn't they get extensive coverage during the time they were living?--Rusf10 (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[]
But of course those others who die in office are not often the first female African-American mayor in the state's largest, most populous county or of the municipality they represent.Djflem (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[]
FYI: national radio stations syndicated story citing (bold mine)

"A mere two years after making history by becoming the first African American mayor of Teaneck, New Jersey, Lizette Parker has passed away."

Don't think it's necessary to include these refs, unless someone would like to have the national coverage documented in article.Djflem (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Question From Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES about notable firsts: an edit made 9 January 2016 by Bearcat which s/he has invoked on numerous occasions here and elsewhere. Unfortunately, there is no link to any RfDs which other editors can review, which would be appropriate since the comment about coverage (repeated by others) and the added guideline seems to originate from one person who is citing h/self. Are there such links, and can it be provided? Would be useful to those engaged in RdD discussions of this sort. Thanks.Djflem (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Not routine coverage: clearly fulfills Wikipedia:AUD having been covered in local, statewide, regional, and national media.Djflem (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[]
See you posted this in two places now, it has nothing to do with this discussion, see WP:NOTFORUM--Rusf10 (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[]
It is about the intensity of Wikipedia editing on topics that strike the Wall Street Journal as remarkable. I noticed the article and mention it here because I, too, have found the intensity of editing on New Jersey politicians to be remarkable. We should all be aware of the damage that our petty personal feuding does to the reputation of the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Why? WP:Clearly notable--Rusf10 (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[]
I think I've addressed this a least twice already, the previous close was "no consensus". Therefore, nothing was "decided"--Rusf10 (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Meets WP:GNG at least. And still. Someone once offered a statement about the definition of insanity... I for one don't expect a different result. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:20, 12 May 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lizette_Parker_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1049174981"