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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paloma Aguirre[edit]

[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)

Paloma Aguirre

This article is a paid work by an editor who is being compensated by the subject. A draft has been created, Draft:Paloma Aguirre, which was declined twice, once for sourcing issues, once for tone issues. The author then created this article, which is the same as the draft, in article space. This bypassed AFC review, and bypassing AFC review is permitted except for paid editors. Review of the sources shows that this article does not establish biographical notability. Only the first reference is independent. The first reference, a newspaper account of her election, is a good source. The other four sources are associated with the subject or with organizations with which she is associated:

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	sandiegotribune.com	Description of her election as Mayor	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
2	www.coastal.ca.gov	States that she is a member of this commission	No	No	Yes	No
3	www.paloma-aguirre.com/	Her personal web site	No	Yes	No	No
4	www.imperialbeachca.gov	The city's web site	No	Yes	?	No
5	caseagrant.ucsd.edu	A long account, that appears to have been written by her	No	Yes	Yes	No

So this article can be deleted, at least for now, rather than being reviewed and sanitized due to the conflict of interest, and the draft can be left for improvement. This does not mean that she is not notable, or that she is notable, but that the article does not establish notability, and so the questions of tone and neutrality do not need to be addressed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and California. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Reference #1 and this make the threshold. And that’s just from the first page of a google search. If an editor has violated WP:PAID and/or WP:COI, that’s a behavioural problem, warn them, block them, but, as well debated at WT:DEL, PAID violations are not enforced by content deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Mexico, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete paid article, mayor of a small town who hasn't received any coverage outside her local area (or her university.) Strong delete here per our custom. SportingFlyer T·C 11:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some coverage in the San Diego papers, but it's strictly local [1]. Might be notable in the future as the first Latino mayor, but we just don't have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Paid editing shouldn't be taken into account when judging notability, but this could be WP:TOOSOON, there is a number of hits in G news but they really only cite quotes as mayor, etc. TLA^tlak 16:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even ignoring the paid editing, her claim to notability is as mayor of a fairly small city (not even in the 100 largest cities in California). Routine coverage of her election as mayor by local media does not contribute to establishing notability. AusLondonder (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is ultra-local. I don't the significant coverage typically needed to satisfy WP:BIO for a WP:BLP. Not WP:NPOL. scope_creep^Talk 07:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small-town mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist as mayors — the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on minimally verifying that she exists, it hinges on writing a substantial article referenced to a significant volume and depth of media coverage that deeply analyzes her political impact: specific things she did as mayor, specific projects she spearheaded as mayor, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's nothing like that here, and the article is based almost entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability but for one hit of "Paloma Aguirre wins mayoral election" in the local media, which is not enough by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2024 (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.