Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila White (politician) (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila White (politician)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unelected politician (fails WP:NPOL) and not notable otherwise (fails GNG). Only news sources are routine coverage of election candidates in local media. At the 2007 AFD, one user recommended keeping as she is a "perennial candidate" - not an inherently notable status, and besides, five elections don't make you a perennial candidate. Madg2011 (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was created (not by me) in 2006, a time when Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians were a lot looser than they are today — technically, at the time what made her eligible for an article was not her unsuccessful candidacies, but her work as a political communications consultant. But that's no longer an automatic free pass to notability either — we're much stricter in 2017 than we were a decade ago about how well an article has to be sourced to satisfy our notability standards, but the depth and breadth of referencing present here just isn't cutting it anymore. And the merger solution that I advocated for in the first AFD is also a consensus that's been weakened in the ensuing decade — there's also now WP:XY to consider, because there are multiple possible redirect targets, and per WP:BLP even the candidate lists aren't allowed to contain much more than the candidate's "name, rank and serial number" anymore either, so there's not really any content to preserve beyond what's already present in any other article where her name appears. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The quality of the article is low and the tone promotional, but quality should not be confused with notability The WP:XY conundrum itself defeats the NOTINHERITED label. Toronto is hardly a "mere local" media market, and I believe that we have sufficient coverage from a combination of enough sources to pass GNG. In some cases, these perennial candidates can reach GNG on account of their repeated attempts generating sufficient coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)

No, we don't have sufficient coverage from a combination of enough sources to pass GNG. What we have is one deadlinked unreliable source (Alaya) that contributes nothing toward notability because it represented her staff profile on the website of a former employer, and three articles (two in Now and one in the Toronto Star) that glancingly namecheck her existence in the process of being about something else. Exactly none of them counts for beans toward notability, because every one of them is either not independent of her or not substantively about her. And incidentally, nobody in this discussion raised a WP:NOTINHERITED argument in the first place, so you're arguing against a strawman with that one. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2017 (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.