Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bearian (talk | contribs) at 12:07, 11 May 2016 (sp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Linda Cohen

Linda Cohen (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)

Local politician who fails WP:NPOL. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep There's a lot more written about her that's not referenced. Keep it with a banner. VanEman (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep (creator). I've added a second source that is reliable and independent of the subject as well as expanded the article. This article passes WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."--TM 10:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If a politician hasn't gotten an automatic WP:NPOL pass by virtue of her role, then it takes a lot more than just two articles in the local media to get her over WP:GNG. All local politicians always garner coverage in their local media, so such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL, no in-depth coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you look at the articles? There are two in-depth articles on Cohen. One even goes so far as to tell her life story.--TM 02:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Two in-depth articles in her local media doesn't cut it. That's WP:ROUTINE coverage of the type that all politicians at this level of office always get. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it better than I did! AusLondonder (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• In a place with a population of just 25K, neither being a city councillor nor even being the mayor constitutes an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — at this level of government the media coverage has to nationalize to make them appropriate for inclusion. But all of the citations here are to local media — which, as noted above, falls under WP:ROUTINE as all local politicians will garner local coverage. Which means that nothing written or sourced here demonstrates a reason why anybody not in her own local area would need to read an article about her. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Article clearly passes WP:GNG with multiple, independent, reliable sources. One of the sources is a long form biographical piece from the state's largest newspaper. There is nothing routine about that. In fact, if you re-read routine, you will see that it clearly does not apply to these sources.--TM 11:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There is not a single city councillor on the planet for whom you couldn't find two articles about them in the local newspaper — such coverage is WP:ROUTINE, because local media covering local politics is entirely within the realm of the normal and expected. If a place is not large enough to get its municipal council politicians over WP:NPOL on size of the city grounds, then media coverage only gets them over the WP:GNG bar if it demonstrates that they're significantly more notable than the norm, by expanding significantly outside the bounds of the purely local. If there were 30 or 40 distinct citations to the local newspaper, then there might be a stronger case that local coverage was enough because the volume of it was getting disproportionately large — but two pieces in the local newspaper isn't even slightly out of the realm of the ordinary level of coverage that all mayors of small towns always get. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

That's certainly a fine opinion for one to have, but it is in no way grounded in Misplaced Pages policy. Your bias against statewide newspaper coverage is baffling. The coverage is quite in-depth and from a variety of sources. Cohen is not just mentioned in the articles, but the articles are in fact about Cohen herself. In fact, if you tried to find such articles on South Portland's current mayor, which I have, you would not be able to find anything even close to the type of biographical coverage that Linda Cohen has received. The Portland Press Herald article is more in-depth than most city councilors receive, so your hyperbole is quite unwarranted.--TM 12:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a bias against "statewide newspaper coverage" — the fact that the local newspaper in her own local area happens to have statewide distribution doesn't constitute statewide coverage for Misplaced Pages's purposes. Even The New York Times, which has national distribution, does not automatically confer "national coverage" status on a topic of purely local interest which it's covering in a purely local context — a chip stand in Williamsburg does not get over GNG just because it got a restaurant review in the local section of the NYT; a non-winning candidate for New York City Council does not get over GNG just because the routine local coverage of the election happens to be in the NYT rather than the Palookaville Pennysaver. Where the coverage is coming from has to expand away from local to count as extralocal coverage, not the distribution range of the local media outlet. And there's no "hyperbole" involved here, either — local media cover local politics. That's their job. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as simply not yet compelling for obvious signs with the applicable notability and also better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - coverage does not extend beyond WP:ROUTINE, other than that, does not pass WP:NPOL. Onel5969 14:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone read WP:ROUTINE? It says absolutely nothing about local news coverage. The sources of this article include a feature length, long form article written by a statewide newspaper and an interview with a regional weekly newspaper, on top of coverage of her actions as city clerk of the largest city in the state and during her time as mayor, when the city council made national headlines. WP:ROUTINE includes "coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" as well as "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs". There is nothing of that sort in this article. If you have a bias against small city politicians having an article on Misplaced Pages, that's fine, but don't try to cite Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines to confirm your bias.--TM 18:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:ROUTINE covers all forms of "media coverage that is to be expected in this context". Yes, it lists wedding announcements and obituaries as examples of what routine coverage entails — but examples do not limit a rule as being applicable only to those specific examples, and irrelevant to anything not explicitly named as an example. Routine coverage does also include purely local coverage of local municipal politics, purely local coverage of the local furniture store's fifth anniversary blowout sale, purely local coverage of local restaurants, purely local coverage of an unsigned local band playing their local watering hole, and on and so forth. If a person or thing doesn't have a strong claim to passing Misplaced Pages's subject-specific inclusion standards for their field of activity, then to get a WP:GNG pass the level and range of media coverage has to go significantly above and beyond the realm of the merely expected. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL and Notability. — Music1201 03:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep WP:ROUTINE unambiguously states that its basis is WP:NOTNEWS. A biographical article is not news, whether or not it is in a newspaper. The first two references are not news, the last three are. Without trying hard, I found a source from the Bangor Daily News (over 100 miles away) covering the mayoral race, so it has at least some coverage at a more regional level. If the standard to pass WP:NPOL/WP:GNG, as Bearcat states, is high volume of local coverage, I was able to find way more than 30-40 local news articles mentioning Linda Cohen, probably closer to a hundred, although I stopped counting. The lack of x number of citations in the article is completely irrelevant to notability. Sure I'd like more sources, but I'm not comfortable deleting at this time. -- RM 19:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

  It appears that in Maine the big newspapers have very wide, effectively state-wide, coverage areas. A local politician gets the level of coverage that in most states a higher level politician may get. That makes them notable at a relatively lower political level, because the amount and geographical spread of coverage increases proportionally. A cursory look at the news coverage supports this. It also appears that the decisions that South Portland makes have statewide ramifications, particularly the local oil policies, since it is an important port. -- RM 20:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep WP:ROUTINE is irrelevant here, since the policy refers only to announcements of events. Linda Cohen has significant statewide coverage. The article easily passes WP:BASIC. As RM noted, there are even more sources not included in the article.Michiquito (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete The articles are local to her, we virtually never let people be deemed to pass GNG for articles on them in their own local press.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete, lacks non-routine significant coverage. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Coverage is routine and local -- fails WP:POLITICIAN, insufficient for WP:GNG. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete As per others. The few articles that are sourced in the article are routine and local. It would require far more sources than the page currently has for it to pass relevant policies. Omni Flames 04:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete, we have a local politician, a former major, who quite understandably got some local coverage. Per standard practice, this is not sufficient to keep the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this was delisted a second time. It seems obvious that there is no consensus.--TM 15:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Certainly there has been coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, perhaps with state-wide distribution. It may have been in depth - but it has not been significant. There is nothing historical. Misplaced Pages is the history book for the future, being written as it unfolds. What is the big picture here? Is there anything about Cohen that makes her clearly notable, in comparison with other former mayors of South Portland? Should we expect that a book-length biography will be written about her? Is there something that leads us to think that in the future, she "will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians"? Is there some scandal or achievement that garnered nation-wide attention?

The Portland Press Herald article goes into great detail about her life, but it doesn't claim or support anything outstanding or exceptionally notable about her; it's more of a "who is the new mayor?" human-interest article. In fact, that article says that for most of her 21-year career as a city clerk, nobody noticed her! And the 2010 piece says "“For nearly a decade, Linda has been the person behind the curtain, making sure that the clerk’s office was an open and welcoming place for the public". This is not the hallmark of a major political figure of historical importance, which is the notability bar for a local politician. The mayor of New York City can generally get over that bar easily; the mayor of South Portland, not so much.

Coverage in multiple reliable sources is the minimum requirement for an article, not an automatic justification. In the case of politicians, there are more specific guidelines about what is significant. It's not only about the number of words in the piece, or the number of times something they've done has been reported, or how many people read it - what matters is the significance that the coverage itself attaches to its subject; whether it claims that it's something truly out of the ordinary. Cohen is obviously a highly competent, dedicated, and effective politician of great integrity, and South Portland is lucky to have her. Personally I think it's all those "troops on the ground" who really make a difference in the world, and it's really unfortunate that Misplaced Pages's "notability" guidelines exclude them from being recognized for it as individuals. I hope that changes someday. But that's the way it is, at the moment. -- IamNotU (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment So your position is that we should ignore WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Where are all of these requirements of which you speak? That she be a major political figure of historical importance? She a book length biography be written about her? The opinions expressed in favor of deletion are not based on Misplaced Pages policies, but on personal editing biases. There only requirement for a biography to be on Misplaced Pages is what you admitted this article had: multiple, reliable independent sources. You even qualified that they are of statewide significance. It's stunning to me that some of my fellow editors wish to WP:IGNOREALLRULES to delete a biography that even some of them admit passes the notability guidelines. Smells like WP:IDONLIKEIT to me.--TM 10:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I seriously do not appreciate the accusations of "personal bias". We are here to discuss the issue, not take potshots at other editors. I did not say they were requirements, they are called standards in the guidelines. There are very few strict rules either for or against notability, but many methods by which to make a judgement call, eg. WP:POLITICIAN:

1. "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office..." or,
2. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. "
3. "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".

Cohen has only the one feature article, so doesn't meet #2. She can be included under #3, but it doesn't mean she should be, without some credible argument as to why we should ignore #1 and #2. WP:GNG says that it "creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included". Otherwise, there would be no point in having WP:POLITICIAN at all.

The other is from WP:ANYBIO, which I think gives an indication about what "notability" should mean: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Generally, a person who is 'part of the enduring historical record' will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians."

One must consider the spirit of the guidelines, what they are trying to convey, not merely "the letter of the law". The mayor of a small city is specifically not entitled to an article purely by reason of their office. Therefore they should demonstrate a level of notability that distinguishes them from previous mayors, and the many thousands of other mayors, not only in America, but around the world. The coverage should be beyond what they might customarily receive, purely by reason of their office, in their city. I think it's not reasonable to conclude from the fact that the Herald published a feature on Cohen's personal background, while they didn't (yet?) do so for the current mayor, that Cohen is markedly more notable. A book-length biography is an illustration of something that would tend to indicate that, though it's not the only thing. It is simply not true that the "only requirement for a biography to be on Misplaced Pages is multiple, reliable independent sources." That misses the word significant, which is the crux. What is considered significant has different levels in different situations. A published in-depth biography of an actor in some circumstances is considered "trivial", because it's done customarily. I submit that a collection of articles that would customarily be written about a small city mayor, plus a single feature article mainly covering an incoming mayor's background and life growing up in their city, but not an in-depth analysis of an acclaimed political life and accomplishments that might be expected to become "part of the enduring historical record", does not meet the bar. You are welcome to disagree with me. You are not welcome to cast aspersions on my personal integrity as an editor! -- IamNotU (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete She fails WP:POLITICIAN as the mayor of a small town of 25,000, and a few local newspaper profiles, even if nicely written, do not overcome that, and do not meet WP:GNG. Misplaced Pages is not a directory of every small town politician on this planet. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Delete As above - a not notable local politician Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I've updated the article to reflect the fact that Cohen was not "elected" as mayor, but appointed by a vote of her fellow council members. The city government of South Portland uses the council-manager form, in which the position of mayor is "a largely ceremonial title", the chairperson of the council, which rotates among council members every year. I also included the information about Cohen's day job as the branch manager of a local bank, during her term as mayor; the daily operations and executive power of the city's government are the responsibility of the city manager. Those who argued to "keep" - VanEman, TM (creator), RM, and Michiquito - were you aware of this?

I also want to be clear that I don't think the sources are enough to meet WP:GNG / WP:BASIC. The claim of notability seems to be based almost entirely on a single feature article in a greater Portland newspaper, which is essentially a human interest story about someone from humble beginnings who has just achieved the title of "mayor" of South Portland. The rest are basically routine coverage of local community stories or news events such as "Portland City Clerk to resign" - which would be expected to include some biographical information about the clerk, but doesn't establish enduring notability. I would also point out that all other politicians in Category:Mayors of South Portland, Maine were at some other point also elected to either state or national governments. -- IamNotU (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I've seen two disturbing trends here at AfD: first, to construe notability guidelines very narrowly, especially POLITICIAN, and secondly, biting of newbies. I'm not taking a stance either way, but I'd appreciate more civil writing here. Thank you. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bearian: The creator of the article has 10 years of editing history. Who's the newbie? AusLondonder (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

AusLondonder Oh, I should be sorry then, it was my error. I though the creator was a newbie, from the way it -- and this thread -- was written. Never mind. Delete, then, per growing consensus to enforce the guideline strictly. Bearian (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. FWIW, I still think we construe our guidelines a bit strictly nowadays, but I also understand how consensus changes. Bearian (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates
• Relisted AfD debates
• AfD debates relisted 3 or more times