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 so a default keep for now. (aeropagitica) 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alix Rosenthal[edit]

Non-notable local politician that doesn't meet WP:BIO as far as I can tell. The article also reads like a campaign flyer. Thought about Speedy A7, but brought it here instead. ju66l3r 19:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To the contrary, the article meets the proposed WP:C&E standards for candidates and elections. I dispute the allegation that the article "reads like a campaign flyer." Its tone and word usage is neutral; it merely states facts: her background, experience, where she lives, and her endorsements, which, again, meets WP:C&E. It reads more like a voter information guide than anything else. If anyone finds that a particular word or phrase in the article, as it is written now, indicates bias, please cite those words or phrases. This article is relevant at least until after the election is held on November 7, 2006. --Waterthedog 21:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It does not meet the WP:C&E proposition. The proposition states: "articles on elections should be written before articles on individual candidates. Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written." This isn't an article on the election (because that's not notable either), the information is not independent (as the sole source of the article is her campaign website), and it's barely verifiable as per the comment below given the lack of much info by Lexis-Nexis. ju66l3r 21:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lexis-Nexis search confirms nom's suspicion of failing WP:BIO. Pan Dan 21:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In response to the comment above, I have done two things to conform to the WP:C&E proposition: (1) I created an article for the San Francisco, California 2006 election; (2) I edited the article on Alix Rosenthal to conform to the "independent, verifiable information" rule in the the WP:C&E proposition by taking out any information that is not in the San Francisco Department of Election voter pamphlet, which is now cited in the article, with one exception: her endorsements; however, these can be verified on the websites of the endorsing organizations, all of which are cited. This local election is noteworthy because it is an election for the legislative body of a major city; this is on par with an election for mayor. There are articles on Wikipedia on the local elections for similar legislative bodies of cities like Portland, Oregon. Likewise, there is an article on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and with the exception of two members, articles on each member of that the Board. I don't see why candidates who run against them in elections cannot have articles, as well. --Waterthedog 03:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:These improvements lessen the problem but since WP:C&E is still only a proposition at this point, I will not rescend my AfD nomination, allowing the community and administrator to decide the article's ultimate fate. While your assertion of notability due to seated members having notability is compelling, Wikipedia article creation/edits should not be used to make a point. Also, simply because others are doing it doesn't make it acceptable policy either (and those articles may end up finding their own way to the AfD pages). One reason why candidate pages are more difficult to consider as notable/worthy is to consider the fact that anyone can become a candidate (barring technicalities for signing up). That's hardly notable, but winning the election is certainly notable (and thus why seated officials might have a page but candidates running against them might not). I hope that addresses some of your concerns for why this page may still go (although the election page looks very good and may stay). ju66l3r 17:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Campaign ad disguised as an article (Look! It even has a list of endorsements!) for a local politician who doesn't appear to well-known even locally. If and when she gets elected and does something notorious (and being on the SF Board of Supervisors gives plenty of scope for that), she can get an article, but she's not even close to rating one now. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:This article states facts about the candidate. Again, anyone who claims that this article is an ad in disguise or is in any way biased, please point out the words or phrases that give that appearance. Endorsements are verifiable facts and should not be deemed promotional content. Endorsements typically appear in nonpartisan voter guides, and they can further or hinder a candidate's success. An endorsement from an organization with which a voter disagrees, for example, is a reason for that voter not to vote for a candidate. Inclusion of endorsements conforms with the WP:C&E proposition. Although running for local public office does not confer notability by itself, when combined with a growing body of independent, verifiable information -- and yes, endorsements are a part of that -- notability emerges. And that's consistent with the WP:C&E proposition. Further, a Google search of this candidate yields about 12,600 results, and given that this particular name combination is not all that common, it's likely that most of these results refer to her. To say that a local political candidate can only attain notability after winning the election is just as inaccurate as saying that simply running for local public office confers notability. --Waterthedog 18:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Calton. Eusebeus 13:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Anyone who feels this article should be deleted, please address the points that I raised above in my comment to Calton. --Waterthedog 18:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Forgetting WP:C&E for a moment, can you say why she passes WP:BIO? Pan Dan 18:34, 5 October 2006 (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.