Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimee Winder Newton

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 no consensus. While there was a delete vote alongside two keeps, the delete was practically a WP:PERX and fails WP:ATA, and a second relist failed to generate any more votes, so I'm closing this as no consensus default to keep. (non-admin closure) ミラP 16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Winder Newton (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)

WP:BLP of a politician with no strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won — the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, so the fact that she's a candidate in a future gubernatorial primary is not a notability claim in and of itself. The only political office she has held is at the county council level, which is not an "inherently" notable level of political office — it's a level at which a person only gets into Wikipedia if they can show nationalizing coverage which demonstrates a reason why they could be considered much more notable than the norm. But this is referenced to a mix of primary sources (her council profile on the council's own self-published website, and two newspaper op-eds where she's the bylined author and not the subject) that aren't support for notability at all, glancing namechecks of her existence in articles about the deaths of other family members, and a small smattering of purely local coverage of the type that every local politician everywhere can always show, none of which is how you demonstrate that a county councillor is notable enough for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November 2020 if she wins the gubernatorial election, but nothing here is grounds for her to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Salt Lake County together with Salt Lake City form a major metropolitan area with two very reliable newspapers, The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News. With about 10 articles referenced from those two sources, it's pretty obvious she's notable. Being Chairwoman of the County Council is likely a very big deal. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    County councillors are not automatically accepted as notable just because they have local coverage in the local media. Every county councillor in every county always has that, so if the existence of some local media coverage were all it took to hand a local politician a GNG-based exemption from having to clear NPOL, then NPOL would literally never apply to anybody anymore because every local politician would always get that exemption. Rather, we have a longstanding consensus that politicians at the local level (municipal, county, school board, etc.) clear the notability bar only if their coverage expands far beyond where it's merely expected to exist, to the point that they have a credible claim to being much more nationally significant than most other county councillors. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Smallbones. SL Tribune and Deseret News are regional media for the Mountain West states [1], not local, which gives their coverage sufficient weight to meet NBIO. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The question of whether a media outlet is "local" or "regional", for the purposes of making a county councillor more special than other county councillors, is determined by its location of publication, not its distribution range. If a newspaper is published in Salt Lake City, then its coverage of a municipal politician in Salt Lake City is local coverage that falls below the bar — the fact that it might happen to have supplementary readership beyond Salt Lake City alone does not turn its local coverage into notability-making "regional" coverage that would make her more special than other county councillors. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.