Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Lulka

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Lulka

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only for serving as a school board trustee. This is not a level of office that satisfies WP:NPOL -- but all we have here for sourcing is the purely WP:ROUTINE level of purely local election coverage that a school board trustee would be expected to receive -- so nothing here suggests that she's more notable than the norm, which is the standard that a school board trustee has to meet to get a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Hi, I have a couple of questions for you:

on "This is not a level of office that satisfies WP:NPOL" - does this also apply to city councillors? So a newly elected city councillor shouldn't get a wikipedia page just based on election coverage?
on "sourcing is the purely WP:ROUTINE level of purely local election coverage that a school board trustee would be expected to receive" the WP:ROUTINE doesn't mention election coverage as something routine. So where is this bar that separates routine from not routine?
Also someone becoming school board trustee would get less news coverage, but in this case what was newsworthy was the fact that she was a rookie who wan against an established "brand" a family of local politicians.

02:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

City councillors in most cities are not eligible for Wikipedia articles at all, except in major internationally famous global cities (of which Toronto is one, so if you were planning to point to the articles about Toronto city councillors then don't try.) And school trustees, even in major internationally famous global cities, are notable only if you can demonstrate that they are individually far more notable than the norm for some substantive reason. If a political office does not pass NPOL, then election coverage is WP:ROUTINE — because all elections, even to school boards, always generate local news coverage in their local media, the existence of that coverage does not confer a WP:GNG pass if the office they were elected to hasn't passed WP:NPOL.

The only ways a school board trustee can become notable enough to have a Wikipedia article are (a) the coverage nationalizes into something way beyond the bounds of the purely local (e.g. she becomes so prominent that she starts getting coverage in the Vancouver Sun or the Calgary Herald), (b) the coverage volumizes to the point where you could write or source at least a small novel about her, or (c) she subsequently goes on to get elected to an office that does pass NPOL, such as Toronto City Council or the provincial legislature or the federal House of Commons. "Rookie who won against a candidate with a more prominent family name" is not a reason in and of itself why a school board trustee gets an article. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete District school board trustees are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:POLITICIAN, a fairly minor city level political office, only local coverage, and not even much of that. Nsk92 (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2016 (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.