Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Daigle (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 redirect to California State Assembly elections, 2012#District 74. With the history deleted. Most commenters agree that there should not be a separate article on this subject. T. Canens (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Daigle

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Leslie Daigle (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)

Previous discussion was closed as no consensus due to ARS canvassing. Again nominating on the premise that local politicians aren't notable enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Article should also be deleted because it's the subject of a VERY messy content dispute involving a number of edits and almost half the content in the article. Would note that "attack page" (which much this article seems to be) is both a CSD and a reason that several articles related to the 2012 presidential election have been deleted pbp 04:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Neutral. My take is that the content dispute is primarily an edit war with an interest in trashing the subject, and I agree with Drmie's characterization of the edits as WP:BLP violations and vandalism. That circumstance ought to be separated from the notability concern, and isn't itself a rationale for deletion. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It can be a consideration...and if you were to take out all the uncontroversial information that hasn't been challenged by someone, the article would be about a paragraph long. When you add in that she doesn't have any coverage in major publications and fails WP:POLITICIAN, you've got a pretty good argument for deletion pbp 04:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a distinction regarding motive for challenging content: that which is challenged in good faith for violating WP:BLP, and that which is challenged where a primary interest is in creating a negative piece. That said, I'm not strong on notability for local assembly members. But I don't think this version can be viewed as particularly controversial [1]; whereas this version, including the poorly sourced 'Being Passed Over for Mayor', speaks for itself [2]. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - minor politician of no real note. I'm sure every local politician has made some people happy and ticked off others, resulting in local coverage - they don't all need to be in the encyclopedia, and this is a case in point. LadyofShalott 04:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the people arguing that I need to read Politician because I said delete, I don't care if a redirect is made (I'm all for anything that helps the reader find the right article). As a stand-alone article though, this needs to go,, and that was and still is my main point. LadyofShalott 18:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • LadyofShalott below states "this person does not meet our notability requirements", but no such requirements are found in the above !vote.  The analysis says "no real note", which is an argument that falls between WP:ATA#Just not notable and WP:ATA#Just unencyclopedic.  See WP:ATA#Just unencyclopedic, which says,

    "Unencyclopedic" is an empty argument. It means "not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it's a circular argument: "Delete, because it should be deleted"...What we want to know are your reasons why the article shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Simply answer the question, What guidelines does it violate, and how?

    How do we view the the two-hundred reliable newspaper articles available on this topic to reach a conclusion that this topic is not WP:N "worthy of notice", i.e., what is it about this particular topic that makes it a special case such that we are empowered to ignore the WP:GNG general notability guideline?  What quantifies the claim and guideline relevance of "local coverage", "local politician", and "minor politician" as being relevant to WP:GNG and being anything other than "I-don't-like-those-things" arguments?  Articles like this one that are filled with reliable material do not go directly to the chopping block if they fail notability, see WP:N#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines, which states,

    For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

    The next step in a deletion argument is to consider the WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion AKA WP:ATD.  If the topic fails notability, what should be done with the WP:V reliable material and the topic title?  Are there suitable target topics for a merge?  Is there a topic missing in the encyclopedia that were it to be created would be a suitable merge target?  If not, is there a suitable target for a redirect, allowing the WP:V reliable material to be retained in the edit history of the redirect?  Unscintillating (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't like my phrasing above? Fine, she is not notable. A bunch of little mentions in a local newspaper do not add up to passing either the GNG or POLITICIAN. That is my argument. The article should be deleted, but as she is a candidate in an election for which there is an article, her name should then be redirected to that article. Do I need to make my argument any clearer? LadyofShalott 22:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm commenting here to re-emphasize the fact that consensus was reached on a fair version of the page with some Mod input, until a few editors decided to delete sourced information due to being "trivial" to them and in their judgement the sources weren't reliable enough, even though the source is one of the biggest newspapers in the County of Orange. If the article is to be deleted, so be it. Any modicum of fairness has been lost in this page due to corrupt editors like the ones recognized by IP addresses only and also Drmies. --Socalpolitik (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The previous response seems to be saying that deletion should be scheduled if and when the candidate fails to win in the Fall.  Implicitly, this also means that the topic should be deleted on June 5 if the topic fails to advance in the primary.  I respond that such a position falls to WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER.  We need to be building the encyclopedia with a long view, and also not with content that is based on future events.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Councilpeople aren't automatically notable; there is some positive spin (I toned it down in an earlier version) but it's absolutely minor. Being ninth on the list of influential people of a given community isn't much. That she was rude to a security guard (and/or vice versa) shouldn't make someone notable, and it's pretty obvious that this incident was seized upon to make this a name and shame article. Bottomline, though--not notable either via her job or the GNG. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend to Delete and create a redirect (rather than merge), per MelanieN, below, and LadyofShalott, above. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why should all of the WP:V reliable material in the edit history be deleted?  Is this to avoid the work of REVDELing the attack revisions?  The refutation of WP:GNG here, "not notable...via...the GNG" is right out out WP:ATA, WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just not notable , and the previous points do not address the hundreds of reliable non-trivial sources and sufficient WP:V reliable material to write an enduring biography.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that's not where I got my argument from, though I appreciate the pointer--next time, I'll simply copy from there. Since you have "responded" to just about every opponent of yours in this AfD, allow me: it should be deleted because this person is not notable. No, it is not to avoid the blah blah...there is nothing in the history worth rev-deling, as far as I know; if there were I would have done that already. "Not notable via the GNG" is shorthand for a lot of words which boil down to "not notable via the GNG", and you know exactly what I mean. Your "hundreds of reliable sources"--yeah, well, you know, there aren't hundreds of them. There's a bunch of articles in the local paper on a city council person, that's it. Melanie has already pointed to a relevant policy--rather than clutter up this AfD with your repetitive badgering, why don't you go write enduring biographies on every single city council person in your municipality? You could have covered the entire county (including county commissioners, BOE, and water board) already with all the time you spent on this one. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject is a local councilwoman who does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Her candidacy for state assembly is not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG -- if she wins, that's possible a different story. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(1) As MelanieN said, there is no case for deletion at this AfD.  (2) The argument that Daigle's "candicacy for state assembly is not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG" in no way explains how WP:GNG fails, it might reasonably be seen as consent that there is no decent argument to be made against WP:GNG.  Given two hundred reliable sources with non-trivial coverage, I suggest that the encyclopedia as a whole would be better off with your abandoning the claim against WP:GNG and instead arguing that the topic is not "worthy of notice" as per the lede of WP:N.  And then focus on what would be an appropriate merge target for the WP:V reliable material, if any.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if everything in the article was accurate, it's not clear that she's had enough secondary coverage to satisfy WP:GNG (she certainly doesn't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a city council). However, some of the claims are not accurate. Some of the inflated assertions come partly from her Newport Beach government website bio ([3]). If you read any of the councilmember's bios, they are all written like advertisements. Even if we accept the "facts" in her bio as true, there are still inaccurate representations in our article. We say she is a "leading member" of the finance committee. She is (or was) not, she's described as a member (there are 3 members on the committee, one of whom is chair - ([4])) in the bio. We say that thanks to her, the city got a AAA rating (perhaps the most important claim in the article, in my view), and yet the secondary source we cite ([5] doesn't even mention her name, and her bio says, that she "worked with her colleagues" to obtain that rating, not that she obtained it somehow on her own.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN spectacularly. Coverage incidental to the minor office and doesn't quality as significant coverage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Lacks coverage in reliable third-party sources. →Bmusician 12:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My original rationale for nominating this article for deletion still stands: Non notable local councillor, who fails WP:POLITICIAN, has only minor coverage and is really a case of WP:BLP1E Valenciano (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 13:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 13:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Dru of Id. Non-notable candidates in notable elections should be redirected to said elections. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Dru of Id and per standard Wikipedia practice for political candidates. Those who are arguing for "delete" should reread WP:POLITICIAN: "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this (notability) guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This rescue tag is highly inappropriate for two reasons: a) the article can't be rescued because it is fully-protected, and b) it was already tagged as rescue once. As such, it basically amounts to yet more canvassing of the ARS pbp 21:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that its currently protected doesn't mean one can't search for sources, and its previous tagging doesn't mean anything either. We have articles that are 9 years old that remain terrible and need improvement. The fact that ARS was alerted to this AfD doesn't mean we come in slobbering to vote keep.--Milowent • hasspoken 23:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pbp, while I fully agree that this person does not meet our notability requirements, I think this argument is ridiculous. That the article is fully protected just means that people have to discuss changes on its talk page. If and when consensus is reached, a request can be made to have the edit implemented. LadyofShalott 03:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, what the Lady says is what I just said on my talk page. Pbp, that argument doesn't fly. We'll talk it out here. Milowent, you can prove your point by making Dream Focus say delete--there's a first time for everything! Drmies (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the savings clause under WP:POLITICIAN applies here. The only parts of that guideline that address local politicians also mention significant coverage outside the local area. I believe that treatment per WP:OUTCOMES would be appropriate. (Local politician) - (demonstrated previous notability) = (delete) . UnbelievableError (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your math is missing a term. Per WP:POLITICIAN, (Local politician) - (demonstrated previous notability) + (candidate for a notable office) = redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the delete votes notwithstanding I do not see anyone refuting how the multiple non trivial third party sources in reliable sources that cover the subject in depth are invalidated simply because some dislike this entry. I also note extreme prejudice that most have not seemed to consider any alternative such as a merge nor have they provided any evaluation of the sources.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes the subject specific guideline for this sort of thing WP:POLITICIAN. See item 2 Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. This person has gotten ample coverage, as found and linked to in the last AFD and in the article now. Dream Focus 00:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, since when did a few mentions in the local paper become "significant press coverage"? Apparantly never, at least according to the almost a dozen !votes who weren't ARS canvassed. Also, how do you get around the issue of the fact that 70-80% of the article is challenged by one party or another pbp 00:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She gets quoted in the Honolulu Star, The Seattle Times, and The Virginian-Pilot about the lifeguard pay issue. Most of the Google news archive results are from Daily Pilot and The Orange County Register(circulation 250,724 Daily, 311,982 Sunday), but I see results from elsewhere as well. She gets quoted and mentioned elsewhere. A lot of search results to look through. And the fact that some are edit warring on what to put in or out of the article, isn't relevant to this AFD at all. The Alicia Silverstone article was locked to stop edit warring awhile back, no one suggested that was a reason to delete it. Dream Focus 01:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find these claims of ARS canvassing by PBP in the nomination and above galling. I see that PDP has nominated this article for deletion, clearly canvassing people interested in deletion of the article. In the last AFD, he could barely scrape up votes and it closes as no consensus. This time a ton of editors show up within 48 hours of the nomination to vote delete. I demand an investigation.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure of whom you think you can "demand an investigation" be done, or how it's to be conducted. I'll tell you straight up though that before the article was nominated here, there was discussion of it at User talk:Drmies#Leslie Daigle. (By the way, did you ever think of asking nicely if there had been discussion elsewhere?) LadyofShalott 03:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course not, I was just mimicking PBP's drama. The article should stand or fall on its own merits. If Daigle wasn't in the news for some negative stories, we wouldn't be having the debate, she'd just be a typicaly non-notable city council member.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Lady, but I got this. Milowent and I are the same sides of a different coin, or something like that. Mortal enemies! Milowent I'll be honest with you: we had some very decent off-wiki canvassing; pity y'all discovered us. I tried to suppress the log with my magic admin bit but damn you! you're just too smart. Doubledrats! (BTW, I agree with you on the drama--Pbp, come one--there's no need for this.) Dream Focus, Alicia Silverstone is notable; this person isn't--the occasional coverage notwithstanding. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Milowent, a few things if I may: I was not the initiator of the first AfD, the only person I mentioned this AfD to was someone who expressly said another AfD should be started, and most of the delete votes here I have never interacted with pbp 04:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both Milowent and Drmies needed to add a disclaimer I have sometimes used: "Notice for the humor-impaired: the above is sarcasm." --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a place and time for sarcasm. I welcome it. This isn't the place. pbp 15:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there is likely canvassing done by PBP to garner these votes. We had a decision a while back where he would not follow me to articles I edit on, specially local politicians and to stop accusing me in a galling and ignorant manner regarding canvassing which he simply refuses to understand is unrelated to the article rescue squad. The closing admin should note that this entry meets POLITICIAN and the GNG and why, and regardless of the canvassed votes and bad faith comments should weigh it on its own merits and sincerely consider a merger or redirect in order to preserve the edit history and or content.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite Wikipedia guidelines correctly. This person absolutely does NOT meet WP:POLITICIAN, which you should read; it gives automatic inclusion to certain politicians but not city council members. Your argument rather is that the person meets WP:GNG based on sources, and you are certainly free to argue that point, which is a matter of opinion and evaluation of sources by individual editors. There are really only two choices here. If she meets GNG the article should be kept; if she does not, the article should be redirected to the election she is running in. "Delete" is not an option - again, per WP:POLITICIAN, which all the "delete" !voters need to read as well. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Melanie, thank you, though I will quibble a bit: "general rule" does not mean deletion is off the table. In this case, a plenty reliable source indicates she is running so such a redirect would make sense. Thanks for setting a lot of us straight; I will amend my vote to "delete and redirect": I still think the content needs to go. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it pbp 02:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and stay away from my talk page. I can edit whatever articles I so choose, but you have been told numerous times to stay away from my talk page pbp 02:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [sigh] Luciferwildcat, will you knock it off. There is nothing to agree with. There was no canvassing; Milowent was using hyperbole to counter Pbp's hyperbole. (And don't tell the closing admin what they do, will ya.) Also, I think the time has come for Pbp to make a promise to stop hyperboling about ARS canvassing. OK? Drmies (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

[edit]
  • Comment  The argument that a topic fails WP:POLITICIAN does not stand if the topic satisfies WP:GNG.  The documentation of this relationship is placed in the lede of WP:N, the relevant part of which is reproduced here.  WP:POLITICIAN is a part of WP:Notability (people).
Notability
Subject-specific guidelines

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below...

A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.

Note that WP:N continues,

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

Unscintillating (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  In response to rationales that this topic is only covered in one newspaper ("There's a bunch of articles in the local paper on a city council person, that's it." and "A bunch of little mentions in a local newspaper..."), I did a listing from Google News, and also I skimmed a Google search looking for sources that appeared to be newspapers.
Unscintillating (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please relegate this laundry list of "sources" to the AfD's talk page, or to the article's talk page. Other editors: Note that many of the "sources" mentioned do not provide in-depth coverage. Also, it is entirely unnecessary to repeatedly quote from WP:N. The editors here are already quite familiar with it. Repeatedly quoting it is a) horrendously condescending, and b) a waste of space pbp 01:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: This list of papers that mentions Daigle is clearly GOOGLEHITS, and offers no context as to whether the sources offer more than a passing mention. As such, it should probably be disregarded pbp 01:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't confuse these as "sources", the point of this list is this, "Do you agree that there is more than one newspaper?"  Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since you mention sources, I've listed six of them on the talk page here Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Leslie Daigle (2nd nomination).  Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they're not listed as an attempt to assert notability, why are they there? And I'm not sure I agree that there is IN-DEPTH coverage in several sources, as some of the links only mention Daigle in passing pbp 01:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you are talking about.  Saying "If they're not listed..." seems to be taking a comment I made about the list on this page and applying it to the list on the talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  The evidence is solid that this topic passes WP:GNG.  WP:GNG is part of "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow..."  None of the notability arguments here have appealed to either "WP:IAR" or to the "worthy of notice" clause., theyThe deletion arguments that mention WP:GNG either claim without suitable evidence that WP:GNG fails, or they don't attempt to argue against it.  It is a pattern seen before at WP:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes that because of the footnote in WP:POLITICIAN that has sourcing requirements that exceed WP:GNG for local councilmen, local councilmen fail WP:POLITICIAN and pass WP:GNG.  But as I understand it this is why editors came up with WP:GNG so that we didn't have to face arguments about whether or not some given topic was "good enough" based on editors' personal criteria, to merit a place in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article.  WP:GNG in spite of its flaws is more objective than, "local politician", "local newspaper", "local coverage", "minor politician", "local paper", "local councilwoman", "local councillor", and "local council member"; which are versions of "I Don't Like It", "Just unencyclopedic", and "Just not notable".  Moving on, as I quoted above from the lede of WP:N, passing WP:GNG is not in turn a requirement that we keep this topic as a stand-alone article.  There has been room here to have had a discussion about the balance between a topic that passed WP:GNG with 80 sources before she decided to run for the California assembly; the relevance of WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER, and WP:CRYSTAL to the newer additional hundred sources; and the benefits of identifying a new list article target for this multiply-notable persona.  But such a discussion has not developed.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stating that "local" arguments are equivalent of IDONTLIKEIT is wrong. We have to set a level where a topic has received some type of significant coverage outside of the geographic and informational area to say that it is of note to larger interest, otherwise you allow WP to create walled gardens of information and violating IINFO. Otherwise, nearly every local restaurant, garage band, and high school student could probably be deemed notable with a bit of work. NSPORTS has the right idea that for the types of professions that nearly always get covered as part of regular news reporting (in their case, sports figures) to set a higher bar for what type of news should be expected for showing notability, that excludes local coverage only (though local sources can be used when the article is notable by other means). This would translate directly to a politician at the local level. So, no, when people say "local", they are worried about IINFO, and not because they don't like it. (Also remember: just being name-dropped or even having a one-line quote in a non-local paper is not significant coverage.) --MASEM (t) 13:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:GNG, "significant coverage" is coverage within one source that is not trivial, and trivial is defined as the mention of the high-school band "The Three Blind Mice" in a book about Clinton.  There have been no trivial sources identified.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at WP:IINFO, and the only relevant concept I saw there was "See also: WP:Notability".  WP:Notability does not have the word "local".  So the question becomes, what objective criteria exist to relate your concept to WP:GNG?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This topic is presently passing both WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, in which this person has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Many of the sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
  • Michael J. Mishak; Anthony York (May 19, 2012). "Centrist GOP candidates may offer chance to end California gridlock". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
  • Mona Shadia (May 16, 2012). "Mansoor accuses opponent of willingness to work with unions". Huntington Beach Independent. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
  • Martin Wisckol (May 17, 2012). "Benefactor now up to $270k for Assembly candidate Daigle". Orange County Register. Retrieved 2012-05-24. Daigle...would be the favorite to beat Rush in a one-on-one race and could be a formidable opponent for Mansoor in a head-to-head matchup.
  • Jeff Overley (February 2, 2010). "Political cash flows in Newport Beach". The Orange County Register. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
  • Brianna Brialla (February 6, 2009). "Dredging banking on stimulus funds. City officials have estimated as much as $16 million is needed to complete the project in Newport Bay, Harbor". Daily Pilot. A Los Angeles Times Website. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
—Northamerica1000(talk) 17:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment: There is a pretty clear consensus against keeping this. You'll find that there are more than twice as many delete or redirect votes as keep votes. That means that delete and redirect are the only options pbp 15:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite policies or guidelines to support your opinion.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? WP:CLOSEAFD says, "After seven days, an uninvolved admin (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) will assess the discussion for consensus to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article." If that person relied on what some participant said the consensus was, they wouldn't really be doing an assessment, now would they? LadyofShalott 01:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really...several voters have reaffirmed their delete votes despite the "sources", which still don't amount to satisfaction of WP:POLITICIAN. pbp 17:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Additional new sources about Leslie Daigle. This regional coverage further demonstrates the topic's notability, in which the topic now passes WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and criteria #3 of WP:POLITICIAN:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 19:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added three more sources above comprised of significant coverage about the topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how many sources you clutter up this AfD with (sourcing discussions belong there, not here), as a City Council candidate, she still fails WP:POLITICIAN. This is what a number of editors have said, and will continue to say. The protection is irrelevant pbp 19:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Actually, the provision of additional significant coverage in reliable sources proves that the topic easily passes criteria #3 of WP:POLITICIAN, which states:

"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 primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

This topic is exceedingly passing the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources. As such, the article should be retained, rather than removed from the encyclopedia.
—Northamerica1000(talk) 20:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage ≠ automatic keep pbp 01:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She is not a city council candidate, she is a city councilwoman, she is a state assembly candidate.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2012 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leslie_Daigle_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137986008"