Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra P. Davis

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Alexandra P. Davis}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Alexandra P. Davis}})

WP:BLP of a county-level politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, county commissioners are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show a significant volume and depth and range of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about their work to establish a reason why they should be seen as substantially more notable than the norm for that level of significance -- but this is referenced far too heavily to primary sources that are not support for notability at all (e.g. stuff self-published by the county council or community organizations she was directly affiliated with), and what there is for reliable source coverage is just the purely run of the mill stuff (local election coverage, etc.) that every county councillor in every county could always show, not demonstrating any reason why she would qualify as a special case of greater notability than the norm.
Simply existing as a county commissioner is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced a lot better than this. Also clear conflict of interest, as the creator's username had "Apdavis" in it — and the page was then moved from draft into mainspace by a WP:SPA editor with a different username but no edit history on any other topic but Alexandra Davis, without the proper WP:AFC review that was required because of the creator's COI. But as always, even people who do properly meet our inclusion standards still aren't entitled to either create their own articles themselves or pay a staffer to do it for them. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Florida. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails both Politicians and judges criteria. As it says {{xt|Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability}}.Both ([https://xtools.wmcloud.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Alexandra%20P.%20Davis/ xtools]) of the major editors have COI and have only edited this page. As Bearcat said, The sources do not prove she is notable. Most just say she was elected or are primary sources. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 17:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Electricmemory (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Keep_ As Bearcat pointed out, I see there is an overt conflict of interest (COI), but I believe the subject can meet the notability criteria under WP:GNG. Here are some reliable sources I found within the article:

1. The Gleaner (a 190-year-old Jamaican newspaper) covered her early life, career in public service, and political life in depth.[https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20240629/i-will-continue-making-things-happen 1]

2. WPLG covered her role in establishing the in-house social worker position at the Miramar Police Department. [https://www.local10.com/news/local/2024/09/03/miramar-police-department-first-in-florida-to-employ-in-house-social-worker/ 2]

3. The Sun Sentinel (the main daily newspaper in Florida) has featured her in two articles, which I could not access for it is behind paywall. [https://www.sun-sentinel.com/1999/11/26/miramar-seniors-get-break/ 3][https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2022/04/28/skatepark-opens-at-miramar-regional-park-in-memory-of-11-year-old-resident/ 4]

4. South Florida Caribbean news in 2012 listed her within the top 50 influential black business leaders.[https://sflcn.com/50-most-powerful-influential-black-business-leaders-of-2012-includes-several-jamaicans/ 5]

I also see some more references which covered her for her work in the black diasporas of Jamaicans in US which makes me assume that she is somewhat notable individual in the black Jamaican community in US. Instant History (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete The subject fails WP:NPOL so the question is whether the subject would pass WP:GNG with an expectation that there is enough coverage to describe the impact the subject made as a member of the county commission (much more than they exist). The Gleaner article describes election results, and the WPLG and Sun Sentinel articles do not provide significant coverage of the subject. The COI issue is relevant too. --Enos733 (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Per nom. Sources discovered are inadequate for an article. Vedicant (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep- Source provided by Instant History qualify for WP:BASIC at least Godovereverthing (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.