Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynne Ferrario

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. – Joe (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Ferrario

[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)

Local board member. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show she meets WP:GNG, and she certainly doesn't meet either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:NPOLITICIAN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Serving on a smalltown school board is not an article-clinching notability claim in and of itself, but the sourcing is nowhere close to getting her over WP:GNG — three of the eight footnotes are primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all, and the five that are real media are all from the same local newspaper. This represents a range and depth and volume of coverage that every school board trustee everywhere could quite routinely be expected to show, so it's not enough to nationalize her notability as somehow more deserving of an article than most other school board trustees in North America. The rule here is not that as long as a person can show two or more media hits they're automatically exempted from actually having to pass our subject-specific inclusion rules for their occupation — if you're shooting for "doesn't pass any SNGs but is notable anyway just because media coverage exists", then actually getting there takes a lot more media coverage than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, and a school board is not an automatic notability pass by any means. SportingFlyer talk 17:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for failing notability guidelines at WP:ACADEMIC and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Ifnord (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2018 (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.