Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leirion Gaylor Baird

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. Consensus is clearly on the keep side. It also looks like some of the concerns noted in the nomination have been handled as the article has been significantly edited since being nominated. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leirion Gaylor Baird

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

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

Subject is a major and city councilwoman of Lincoln, Nebraska. Have not been elected in a high level political position. Fail WP:NPOL. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand (and appreciate) the linking to WP:NPOL. Per there, politicians are notable if they have "received significant press coverage", which includes "independently in multiple news feature articles". I think that, after my revision of the article, Gaylor Baird meets those criteria; she has significant local press coverage (and, on occasion, national), which establishes notability. Her candidacy, in addition to controversies with her opponent, were the subject of much local debate and controversy -- enough that I think it was "significant". Per WP:GNG, there is "significant", "reliable", "source[d]", "independent of the subject" journalism. To be sure, that does not automatically presume notability -- but I do not see that, e.g., WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here. I think her press coverage, in addition to her role as a mayor of a large city, establishes general notability. I think that the presumption of notability for statewide legislative office (see: WP:NPOL) suggests that significant, lasting local coverage is enough to establish notability for politicians in general -- for which, this subject meets.DoomLexus (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: content on campaigning or what other talk about the position of majorship or city councilwomen would consider marketing articles. Just as many independent reliable sources talk about a politician running for a federal or national position without no previous high level position before is still considered pass GNG and would not merit a page in Wikipedia. GNG for politician needs more than just info on the low level activities on their position. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Changing my vote to keep per Bearcat below and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians. This article may lend to notability, but I can't get to the with or without adblock (real mess of a website) but it is available on Proquest. https://journalstar.com/lifestyles/thoughts-of-darfur-s-women-motivate-triathlete/article_ccd1a8d2-37a5-59a0-a2c8-55d2a075dc59.html originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 18:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does need some improvement, but mayors of cities the size of Lincoln NE most certainly are acceptable article topics. Mayors of major cities do not have to show as much nationalized coverage as mayors of small towns do — nationalized coverage certainly still wouldn't hurt, but it's not a base condition that big city mayors always have to pass to be considered notable in the first place: that added hurdle applies to small town mayors, but not to mayors of large and significant cities. And while it's true that campaign coverage does not help to establish the permanent notability of an as yet unelected mayoral candidate in and of itself, a person who has jumped the fence from "candidate" to "officeholder" can use the campaign coverage to help expand the article with. And since she was apparently just sworn in as mayor yesterday, it's clear that there will be additional coverage in the future to further improve the article with too. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frankly, I'm surprised this is even a discussion. This is the page for the incumbent Mayor of a state capital with nearly 300,000 residents. I have seen pages for mayors of towns with 10,000 residents that went unchallenged. If this discussion had been raised when she was still a candidate, I might have understood. However, it appears to have been raised instead not only after she was elected, but after she took office. It is so outlandish to me that this page would even be nominated for deletion that I feel tempted to say that it was done in bad faith. Avidohioan (talk) 15:31, 23 May 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.