Home • Search • Translate
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 to delete. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, with participants leaning more in favor of keeping the article. The rationale for keeping this article on a relatively middling politician is borderline, but not nonexistent, as it is a plausible argument that recognition of the subject's death by the highest executive in the state signified influence disproportionate to the subject's mundane office. BD2412 T 04:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Blanquita Valenti

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Blanquita Valenti (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a person notable only for holding political office at the municipal and county levels, not properly sourced as passing NPOL #2. As always, small-city municipal councillors and county freeholders are not automatically notable just because they existed, or because you can show a one-day blip of obituaries in the local media the day after her death -- at this level of political office, the notability test is not just the ability to demonstrate that she existed, but the ability to demonstrate a reason why she was encyclopedically important. She would have to be able to demonstrating a credible reason why she could be considered significantly more notable than the norm for that level of political office, namely by showing a depth and range of coverage that goes far beyond just what every city or county councillor can always show, and enabling us to write something far, far more substantial than "she was a politician who existed, the end". And no, "first Latina to do this otherwise non-notable thing in her own city" doesn't make her special in and of itself either -- had it made her the first Latina woman ever to hold political office in the entire United States, then she'd probably have grounds for inclusion on that basis, but not if her firstness is limited to just one county. Nothing here is inherently notable enough to exempt her from having to have a much greater range and depth of coverage than just a couple of local obituaries. Bearcat ( talk) 18:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 18:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 18:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply
GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number" — GNG most certainly does also test the sources for depth, geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for. For one thing, every city or town or county councillor in every city or town or county always has some local coverage — so if the existence of some local coverage were all it took to exempt a city or town or county councillor from NPOL, then every city or town or county councillor would always be exempted from NPOL. So the notability test that a city or town or county councillor has to pass to earn inclusion in Wikipedia is not just "some local coverage exists in purely local interest contexts" — it is "she can show coverage whose depth, volume and/or geographic range go far above and beyond what most other city or town or county councillors can always also show, thus demonstrating a reason why she should be considered a special case of substantially greater notability than most other city or town or county councillors". Bearcat ( talk) 23:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:NPOL doesn't indicate who can't have an article, WP:NPOL says who are highly likely to meet GNG. WP:GNG doesn'discriminate between local coverage or nationalwide coverage, as long as the sources aren't trivial mentions. So yes, many more articles on politicians can be created apart from NPOL, as long the person meets GNG. She had than some coverage you are saying, for example: the title of "Freeholder Valenti Honored For Decades of Public Service" says enough that it's not trivial and the article give also insight how she was as a mother. I don't see any reason why she doesn't meet GNG. And also again, it's not about notability but coverage. SportsOlympic ( talk) 08:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Actually, WP:NPOL does overrule the GNG, as is explicitly stated in WP:GNG: " Some SNGs, for example the ones in the topic areas of films, biographies, and politicians, provide guidance when topics should not be created.". Fram ( talk) 08:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Ah, That’s a good point. I didn’t know that one. Thanks. However, NPOL doesn’t state which articles must not be created, and for lower-notable people NPOL refers to GNG “Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.” SportsOlympic ( talk) 09:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
We have a very longstanding consensus that we do not want to maintain articles about every single person who ever held office at the local level in every city, town or county that ever existed: there are literally hundreds of thousands of such people (possibly even into the millions) in human history, and they aren't all of any widespread or enduring public importance, so keeping articles about all of them is neither feasible nor desirable. But every last manjack or womanjack one of them can always show local press coverage in their own local area — so if the existence of run of the mill local press coverage was all you had to show to get a city councillor over GNG as an exemption from having to pass NPOL, then we would have to keep an article about every municipal or county councillor who ever councillored. So a city or county councillor does have to show a reason why she should be considered much, much more special than the norm — evidence that her coverage expands well beyond the norm in geographic range, depth and/or volume — and does not automatically pass GNG just because some local press coverage exists.
And while it's true that we don't have any specific rules about who can't have an article, such rules are automatically implied by the fact that we have many rules spelling out who can. A good rule of thumb to follow is that the more localized a person's notability claim is, the more effort you have to put into demonstrating enough substantive significance that people on the other side of the country or the world would actually get something out of reading it. Just documenting that a person lived and died, but saying nothing substantive about why her life and death should be important for a person on the other side of the world to know about, is not how you do that.
NPOL #2 could potentially stand to be rewritten for clarity — but its core purpose and message is that politicians at the local level do need to show reasons why they're significantly more special than most others, and that it is not enough to just show a handful of run of the mill local coverage no different from what every other local politician can always also show. Bearcat ( talk) 15:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your opinion. it’s only not funded by a guideline. For instance, this is clearly your opinion and not a guideline “the more localized a person's notability claim is, the more effort you have to put into demonstrating enough substantive significance that people“ SportsOlympic ( talk) 16:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
No, it's not just my opinion — we have an established consensus that politicians at the local level, such as city councillors, are not automatically notable just because they have a handful of local coverage in their local media, and an established consensus that making a city councillor notable enough for inclusion requires showing that she's much more notable than the norm for city councillors, by virtue of having deeper and/or wider coverage than city councillors routinely get. Bearcat ( talk) 17:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Bearcat ( talk) 17:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
No-one is saying this person is "automatically notable" because of her political position. She is notable because of multiple examples of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. There was a comment earlier on the page that "NPOL over-rides GNG". This is false. WP:NOTE specifically states that topics are presumed notable IF the topic meets either the General Notability Guideline or a Subject Specific Notability Guideline. WP:NPOL also specifically states that "such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". A topic that is utterly irrelevant & non-notable under subject notability can still qualify for general notability. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 04:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Every single city councillor on the planet, without exception, can always show some evidence of local coverage, and thus try to claim that they had passed WP:GNG and were thus exempted from having to pass WP:NPOL — which would automatically render our established consensus that city councillors are not all automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles completely meaningless, because no city councillor on earth would ever be unable to exempt themselves from it. So the notability bar for city councillors is not just "three or more hits of local coverage = GNG booya NPOL irrelevant drop the mic" — it is "her coverage expands so exponentially far beyond the norm, in depth and/or volume and/or geographic range, that she has a strong claim to being treated as much, much more special than most other city councillors". Bearcat ( talk) 16:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC) reply
There is a difference between "some evidence of local coverage" and WP:GNG standards. WP:NPOL refers to WP:GNG. If you don't agree with notabiliby guidelines, you should complain there. SportsOlympic ( talk) 18:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC) reply
What difference between "some evidence of local coverage" and "WP:GNG standards" do you suppose is coming into play here? The entire argument that she passes GNG at all hinges precisely on the fact that she has some evidence of local coverage, so where are you actually drawing the distinction? You're correct that there is a distinction between those two things — what I'm very unclear on is precisely what analysis of these sources is leading you to the conclusion that Blanquita Valentini is falling on the correct side of that distinction, given that the entire argument that she passes GNG is predicated specifically on the fact that she has some local sources? Bearcat ( talk) 01:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: She has three article sources on her page that show significant coverage in a reliable source which is independent of her. This is enough for the page to pass the GNG. Any other argument is irrelevant cruft, or relevant only to the quality of the article itself, which is outside the scope of an AFD. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 16:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who gets to two" — it tests the sources for their geographic range, their depth and the context of what they're covering the person for, not just the raw number of citations present. Bearcat ( talk) 17:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
I very specifically did not just "count raw citations" and decide to "keep anybody who gets to two". I said I consider three sources to show significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of her. Which is the qualifications to pass GNG. Please do not attribute actions to myself that did not take place. You've posted in this thread more than enough to get your point across, I think it's time for you to step back and allow the process to continue with your further input. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 04:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all the sourcing is too local to her place of political operation to lead to showing notability. Every politician will get some local coverage, but we have explicitly decided that not all local politicians are notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not remove her own notability. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 17:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)← reply
Comment: Nice try but we have no rules against local and regional press. gidonb ( talk) 13:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC) reply
We don't have a rule that local and regional press is unusable, no. We do, however, have a rule that local and regional press counts for much less than nationalized press does toward the matter of whether a person has enough press coverage to pass WP:GNG in lieu of actually having to satisfy any specific notability criterion for their occupation. City councillors don't get to automatically bypass NPOL just because some local coverage exists in their local media; bands who haven't achieved anything of significance don't automatically bypass NMUSIC just because they have a handful of hometown coverage of their show at the local pub; actors don't automatically bypass NACTOR just because their first bit part in a film gets them a "local girl gets film role" hit in their hometown paper; local writers don't bypass AUTHOR just because they get a hit or two of local coverage on the occasion of winning a local arts award; and on and so forth. The less inherently "nationalized" the scope of a person's basic notability claim is, the more the article has to do to demonstrate that they're special cases. Bearcat ( talk) 15:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Macktheknifeau, the subject passes WP:GNG also for falling outside WP:BLP, the article may be kept. Though sentences like "Politicians from the senate expressed their condoleances" should be removed from the article. Chiro725 ( talk) 09:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't find convincing the reasons given to justify deletion here. Essentially, the sourcing is compliant with the GNG (eg the New Jersey Globe, Statement from Assemblywoman Lopez, MyCentralNewJersey all count as secondary, independent RS). The deletion argument reading through the nomination and the exchanges above seems to rest on claims of run-of-the-mill and a somewhat fuzzy redefinition of notability. The difficulty for the second argument is that Wikipedia's standard for notability is derived from the GNG...notability is not a criteria existing separate from the GNG. One cannot claim a subject meets the GNG but fails a different definition of notability, so therefore should be deleted. Regarding claims of run-of-the-mill, the emphasis of the deletion argument here to me is quite arbitrary; New Jersey has a population of 9 million people, there are more than 100 countries with a population less than that. As a representative of Middlesex County, population 825,000, she was representing a population greater than the populatino of more than 50 countries. Why should Wikipedia exclude a local government official who has been independently recognised at the highest political level of the state as a pioneer for Latin@ representation in New Jersey? Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 01:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC) reply
As noted, every single city councillor who ever existed in any city can always show this much local coverage, and thus can always claim that they have passed GNG for the purposes of exempting themselves from having to pass NPOL. GNG is not, and never has been, just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who passes an arbitrary number" — GNG does test the sources for factors like geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, and GNG does discount some types of sources (e.g. purely local coverage in purely local-interest contexts that aren't clearly passing SNG criteria) as worth less than other types of sources. So getting a city councillor over GNG is not just a matter of showing that some sources exist — it is a matter of showing that she has so much more, wider and/or deeper coverage, relative to other city councillors, that she has a credible claim to being much more special than most other city councillors, and that has not been demonstrated here. Bearcat ( talk) 13:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Every single councillor that has ever existed does not get public acknowledgment from the governor of the state on their death, the notable ones do, however. Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 14:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this entry is about a lot of trivial, I dont even know what to say cause I am not sure I would even call them events. Wikipedia is not a gravestone hosting platform for people who were not notable. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 14:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL as historically interpreted at AFD. Coverage is routine local news announcing retirements and an obituary. There is nothing in these announcements themselves acknowledging any accomplishments out of the ordinary or suggesting the subject deserves an encyclopedic entry. Politicians at the municipal level of minor cities are generally not notable unless they become significant for something other than what is typical for a municipal civil servant. 4meter4 ( talk) 02:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep since meeting the WP:GNG. gidonb ( talk) 13:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 10:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I saw in the article reliable sources with significant coverage from Valenti: NY Times, New Jersey Globe, Courier News and Home News Tribune. There is no territorial limit for notability. It meets WP:GNG. ✍A.WagnerC ( talk) 15:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The scope and breadth of sources about the article's subject from reliable and verifiable sources meets the notability standard as routinely applied. Alansohn ( talk) 16:15, 5 April 2021 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blanquita_Valenti&oldid=1068827348"
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 to delete. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, with participants leaning more in favor of keeping the article. The rationale for keeping this article on a relatively middling politician is borderline, but not nonexistent, as it is a plausible argument that recognition of the subject's death by the highest executive in the state signified influence disproportionate to the subject's mundane office. BD2412 T 04:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Blanquita Valenti

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Blanquita Valenti (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a person notable only for holding political office at the municipal and county levels, not properly sourced as passing NPOL #2. As always, small-city municipal councillors and county freeholders are not automatically notable just because they existed, or because you can show a one-day blip of obituaries in the local media the day after her death -- at this level of political office, the notability test is not just the ability to demonstrate that she existed, but the ability to demonstrate a reason why she was encyclopedically important. She would have to be able to demonstrating a credible reason why she could be considered significantly more notable than the norm for that level of political office, namely by showing a depth and range of coverage that goes far beyond just what every city or county councillor can always show, and enabling us to write something far, far more substantial than "she was a politician who existed, the end". And no, "first Latina to do this otherwise non-notable thing in her own city" doesn't make her special in and of itself either -- had it made her the first Latina woman ever to hold political office in the entire United States, then she'd probably have grounds for inclusion on that basis, but not if her firstness is limited to just one county. Nothing here is inherently notable enough to exempt her from having to have a much greater range and depth of coverage than just a couple of local obituaries. Bearcat ( talk) 18:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 18:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 18:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply
GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number" — GNG most certainly does also test the sources for depth, geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for. For one thing, every city or town or county councillor in every city or town or county always has some local coverage — so if the existence of some local coverage were all it took to exempt a city or town or county councillor from NPOL, then every city or town or county councillor would always be exempted from NPOL. So the notability test that a city or town or county councillor has to pass to earn inclusion in Wikipedia is not just "some local coverage exists in purely local interest contexts" — it is "she can show coverage whose depth, volume and/or geographic range go far above and beyond what most other city or town or county councillors can always also show, thus demonstrating a reason why she should be considered a special case of substantially greater notability than most other city or town or county councillors". Bearcat ( talk) 23:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:NPOL doesn't indicate who can't have an article, WP:NPOL says who are highly likely to meet GNG. WP:GNG doesn'discriminate between local coverage or nationalwide coverage, as long as the sources aren't trivial mentions. So yes, many more articles on politicians can be created apart from NPOL, as long the person meets GNG. She had than some coverage you are saying, for example: the title of "Freeholder Valenti Honored For Decades of Public Service" says enough that it's not trivial and the article give also insight how she was as a mother. I don't see any reason why she doesn't meet GNG. And also again, it's not about notability but coverage. SportsOlympic ( talk) 08:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Actually, WP:NPOL does overrule the GNG, as is explicitly stated in WP:GNG: " Some SNGs, for example the ones in the topic areas of films, biographies, and politicians, provide guidance when topics should not be created.". Fram ( talk) 08:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Ah, That’s a good point. I didn’t know that one. Thanks. However, NPOL doesn’t state which articles must not be created, and for lower-notable people NPOL refers to GNG “Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.” SportsOlympic ( talk) 09:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
We have a very longstanding consensus that we do not want to maintain articles about every single person who ever held office at the local level in every city, town or county that ever existed: there are literally hundreds of thousands of such people (possibly even into the millions) in human history, and they aren't all of any widespread or enduring public importance, so keeping articles about all of them is neither feasible nor desirable. But every last manjack or womanjack one of them can always show local press coverage in their own local area — so if the existence of run of the mill local press coverage was all you had to show to get a city councillor over GNG as an exemption from having to pass NPOL, then we would have to keep an article about every municipal or county councillor who ever councillored. So a city or county councillor does have to show a reason why she should be considered much, much more special than the norm — evidence that her coverage expands well beyond the norm in geographic range, depth and/or volume — and does not automatically pass GNG just because some local press coverage exists.
And while it's true that we don't have any specific rules about who can't have an article, such rules are automatically implied by the fact that we have many rules spelling out who can. A good rule of thumb to follow is that the more localized a person's notability claim is, the more effort you have to put into demonstrating enough substantive significance that people on the other side of the country or the world would actually get something out of reading it. Just documenting that a person lived and died, but saying nothing substantive about why her life and death should be important for a person on the other side of the world to know about, is not how you do that.
NPOL #2 could potentially stand to be rewritten for clarity — but its core purpose and message is that politicians at the local level do need to show reasons why they're significantly more special than most others, and that it is not enough to just show a handful of run of the mill local coverage no different from what every other local politician can always also show. Bearcat ( talk) 15:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your opinion. it’s only not funded by a guideline. For instance, this is clearly your opinion and not a guideline “the more localized a person's notability claim is, the more effort you have to put into demonstrating enough substantive significance that people“ SportsOlympic ( talk) 16:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
No, it's not just my opinion — we have an established consensus that politicians at the local level, such as city councillors, are not automatically notable just because they have a handful of local coverage in their local media, and an established consensus that making a city councillor notable enough for inclusion requires showing that she's much more notable than the norm for city councillors, by virtue of having deeper and/or wider coverage than city councillors routinely get. Bearcat ( talk) 17:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Bearcat ( talk) 17:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
No-one is saying this person is "automatically notable" because of her political position. She is notable because of multiple examples of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. There was a comment earlier on the page that "NPOL over-rides GNG". This is false. WP:NOTE specifically states that topics are presumed notable IF the topic meets either the General Notability Guideline or a Subject Specific Notability Guideline. WP:NPOL also specifically states that "such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". A topic that is utterly irrelevant & non-notable under subject notability can still qualify for general notability. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 04:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Every single city councillor on the planet, without exception, can always show some evidence of local coverage, and thus try to claim that they had passed WP:GNG and were thus exempted from having to pass WP:NPOL — which would automatically render our established consensus that city councillors are not all automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles completely meaningless, because no city councillor on earth would ever be unable to exempt themselves from it. So the notability bar for city councillors is not just "three or more hits of local coverage = GNG booya NPOL irrelevant drop the mic" — it is "her coverage expands so exponentially far beyond the norm, in depth and/or volume and/or geographic range, that she has a strong claim to being treated as much, much more special than most other city councillors". Bearcat ( talk) 16:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC) reply
There is a difference between "some evidence of local coverage" and WP:GNG standards. WP:NPOL refers to WP:GNG. If you don't agree with notabiliby guidelines, you should complain there. SportsOlympic ( talk) 18:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC) reply
What difference between "some evidence of local coverage" and "WP:GNG standards" do you suppose is coming into play here? The entire argument that she passes GNG at all hinges precisely on the fact that she has some evidence of local coverage, so where are you actually drawing the distinction? You're correct that there is a distinction between those two things — what I'm very unclear on is precisely what analysis of these sources is leading you to the conclusion that Blanquita Valentini is falling on the correct side of that distinction, given that the entire argument that she passes GNG is predicated specifically on the fact that she has some local sources? Bearcat ( talk) 01:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: She has three article sources on her page that show significant coverage in a reliable source which is independent of her. This is enough for the page to pass the GNG. Any other argument is irrelevant cruft, or relevant only to the quality of the article itself, which is outside the scope of an AFD. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 16:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who gets to two" — it tests the sources for their geographic range, their depth and the context of what they're covering the person for, not just the raw number of citations present. Bearcat ( talk) 17:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
I very specifically did not just "count raw citations" and decide to "keep anybody who gets to two". I said I consider three sources to show significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of her. Which is the qualifications to pass GNG. Please do not attribute actions to myself that did not take place. You've posted in this thread more than enough to get your point across, I think it's time for you to step back and allow the process to continue with your further input. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 04:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all the sourcing is too local to her place of political operation to lead to showing notability. Every politician will get some local coverage, but we have explicitly decided that not all local politicians are notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not remove her own notability. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 17:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)← reply
Comment: Nice try but we have no rules against local and regional press. gidonb ( talk) 13:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC) reply
We don't have a rule that local and regional press is unusable, no. We do, however, have a rule that local and regional press counts for much less than nationalized press does toward the matter of whether a person has enough press coverage to pass WP:GNG in lieu of actually having to satisfy any specific notability criterion for their occupation. City councillors don't get to automatically bypass NPOL just because some local coverage exists in their local media; bands who haven't achieved anything of significance don't automatically bypass NMUSIC just because they have a handful of hometown coverage of their show at the local pub; actors don't automatically bypass NACTOR just because their first bit part in a film gets them a "local girl gets film role" hit in their hometown paper; local writers don't bypass AUTHOR just because they get a hit or two of local coverage on the occasion of winning a local arts award; and on and so forth. The less inherently "nationalized" the scope of a person's basic notability claim is, the more the article has to do to demonstrate that they're special cases. Bearcat ( talk) 15:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Macktheknifeau, the subject passes WP:GNG also for falling outside WP:BLP, the article may be kept. Though sentences like "Politicians from the senate expressed their condoleances" should be removed from the article. Chiro725 ( talk) 09:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't find convincing the reasons given to justify deletion here. Essentially, the sourcing is compliant with the GNG (eg the New Jersey Globe, Statement from Assemblywoman Lopez, MyCentralNewJersey all count as secondary, independent RS). The deletion argument reading through the nomination and the exchanges above seems to rest on claims of run-of-the-mill and a somewhat fuzzy redefinition of notability. The difficulty for the second argument is that Wikipedia's standard for notability is derived from the GNG...notability is not a criteria existing separate from the GNG. One cannot claim a subject meets the GNG but fails a different definition of notability, so therefore should be deleted. Regarding claims of run-of-the-mill, the emphasis of the deletion argument here to me is quite arbitrary; New Jersey has a population of 9 million people, there are more than 100 countries with a population less than that. As a representative of Middlesex County, population 825,000, she was representing a population greater than the populatino of more than 50 countries. Why should Wikipedia exclude a local government official who has been independently recognised at the highest political level of the state as a pioneer for Latin@ representation in New Jersey? Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 01:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC) reply
As noted, every single city councillor who ever existed in any city can always show this much local coverage, and thus can always claim that they have passed GNG for the purposes of exempting themselves from having to pass NPOL. GNG is not, and never has been, just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who passes an arbitrary number" — GNG does test the sources for factors like geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, and GNG does discount some types of sources (e.g. purely local coverage in purely local-interest contexts that aren't clearly passing SNG criteria) as worth less than other types of sources. So getting a city councillor over GNG is not just a matter of showing that some sources exist — it is a matter of showing that she has so much more, wider and/or deeper coverage, relative to other city councillors, that she has a credible claim to being much more special than most other city councillors, and that has not been demonstrated here. Bearcat ( talk) 13:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Every single councillor that has ever existed does not get public acknowledgment from the governor of the state on their death, the notable ones do, however. Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 14:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this entry is about a lot of trivial, I dont even know what to say cause I am not sure I would even call them events. Wikipedia is not a gravestone hosting platform for people who were not notable. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 14:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL as historically interpreted at AFD. Coverage is routine local news announcing retirements and an obituary. There is nothing in these announcements themselves acknowledging any accomplishments out of the ordinary or suggesting the subject deserves an encyclopedic entry. Politicians at the municipal level of minor cities are generally not notable unless they become significant for something other than what is typical for a municipal civil servant. 4meter4 ( talk) 02:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep since meeting the WP:GNG. gidonb ( talk) 13:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 10:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I saw in the article reliable sources with significant coverage from Valenti: NY Times, New Jersey Globe, Courier News and Home News Tribune. There is no territorial limit for notability. It meets WP:GNG. ✍A.WagnerC ( talk) 15:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The scope and breadth of sources about the article's subject from reliable and verifiable sources meets the notability standard as routinely applied. Alansohn ( talk) 16:15, 5 April 2021 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blanquita_Valenti&oldid=1068827348"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE