Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lois Jackson

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. Eluchil404 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lois Jackson

Lois Jackson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Finishing unfinished nom placed by User:Ranchdeny; I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete Mayor of a town of over 100,000. However, there are no independent sources to suggest she's done anything noteworthy as mayor.--Sethacus 20:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Local politicians who haven't made a name for themself are two a penny. Operating 21:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Mayors are sufficiantly notable. It's not like she's a city councillor or anything. Plus being a mayor of a city over 100,000 is NOT a reason to delete an article, to the contrary in fact. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Since being created years ago the only additions have been vandalism, 2 sentences do not make an article, it's unsourced, being a mayor or former mayor is not the only criteria of inclusion on wikipedia, no one maintains or improves this article it is unlikely to ever meet the standards, the small amount of info about the mayor is better mentioned in the article on the article about the town in question Bleh999 01:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have expanded and referenced the article so that there is enough in the article to meet WP:BIO. Aa mayor of a large town I am sure there is more that I have not found to expand the article even further. Davewild 09:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

per WP:BIO 'Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage'. & 'Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability'. Your addition is good but the information is not actually notable since the subject of the biography only gets a minor mention and is not the main subject of the coverage. Bleh999 14:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the coverage in [1] as well as in the google news archive [2], many of which are subscription so I can't access them myself so have not added to the article, are significant press coverage and so she does pass WP:BIO. Davewild 14:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — Sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. low notability for encyclopedic inclusion, insignificant and sporadic media coverage Jodes534 02:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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.