Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariah Darling

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Mariah Darling}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Mariah Darling}})

WP:BLP of a city councillor, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, city councillors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the only other current Saint John city councillor who does have an article previously served in the provincial legislature, and thus passes NPOL #1, while city councillors otherwise get articles only if they can show a credible reason why they should be seen as special cases of significantly greater notability than the norm for city councillors. That is, a city councillor doesn't just need to show personal life and career background, they need to show substantial and properly sourced evidence of their political impact — specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their time on council had on the development of the city, evidence of nationalizing prominence, and on and so forth — but there's no content of that type here, and this is just written as background info on a city councillor who exists.
Having previously been a non-winning candidate in a provincial election also isn't grounds for notability -- even at that level, the notability test for a politician still requires holding a seat in the legislature, not just running for one -- and notability is not inherited, so being the child of a previous mayor of the city isn't grounds for notability either.
But the referencing here is a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and the purely run of the mill local campaign and election-night coverage that every city councillor in every city can always show, which is not enough in and of itself.
Existing as a city councillor is not enough for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, but this article is not evincing any reason why Mariah Darling would qualify as a special case over and above the rest of their council colleagues. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The only sourcing is WP:ROUTINE coverage of election results. Fails NPOL. Astaire (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Little to no coverage outside of election results [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/byelection-mariah-darling-votes-1.7406137]. Nothing that makes the individual stand out that I can find. St John is a mid-size city, but simply being on council isn't enough for notability. I don't see any outstanding political activities or anything that would help notability. Simply a politician doing their job. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep I have added additional sourcing and info, including coverage of them as a high school student, LGBTQ+ advocate and president of the town Pride. I think this is enough to meet WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Going through the current sources in the article:
• :* Source [https://chromanb.ca/our-team-2/ 1] is a primary source, not relevant for notability.
• :* Sources [https://tj.news/saint-john-south/saint-john-council-by-election 2] [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/byelection-mariah-darling-votes-1.7406137 3] [https://www.country94.ca/2024/12/09/mariah-darling-elected-saint-john-council/ 4] and [https://www.country94.ca/2021/04/09/mariah-darling-running-in-ward-3/ 11] are routine local election coverage.
• :* Source [https://www1.gnb.ca/Elections/en/prov24oct21/provcandidatelist-e.asp?ElectionID=116 12] (broken) is both primary and local election coverage.
• :* Source [https://www.newspapers.com/article/telegraph-journal-sj-pride-votes-in-new/166645649/ 8] is a trivial mention.
• :* Source [https://www.newspapers.com/article/telegraph-journal-three-students-headed/166645345/ 6] is routine coverage about high school students going to summer camp. There's no way this contributes to notability unless we want to have thousands upon thousands of articles about talented students who get written about in their local paper.
• :* Sources [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-times-transcript-holt-decries-hogan/166645583/ 7] [https://www.newspapers.com/article/telegraph-journal-pride-week-kicks-off/166645680/ 9] and [https://globalnews.ca/news/9893026/saint-john-pride-parade-celebrate-lgbtq2/ 10] include a few paragraphs quoting the subject as a voice of authority/opinion. They're not SIGCOV about the subject in the way that is needed, and there's very little encyclopedic value that can be extracted from them.
• :* Source [https://www.newspapers.com/article/telegraph-journal-why-policy-713-is-abou/166645231/ 5] is the "best", in that it has multiple paragraphs about Darling as a person. But it still has major problems: it's from a local paper which means notability is dubious, and half of it isn't about Darling, but the broader topic of Policy 713. The source is not clear about what this "ongoing fight to protect Policy 713" entails, and so this source is much more about the subject's opinions, rather than their work. As with the other three sources, this isn't encyclopedic in the way that we need.
• :Even if we grant Source 5 (which I don't), a single source means the subject still fails WP:GNG, and certainly fails WP:NPOL. Astaire (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Nearly every town has some sort of a Pride committee; being LGBTQ in 2025 isn't notable. Being involved in the Pride committee is no different than any other town committee, the local zoning or heritage committees don't warrant an article for those that serve on them. Oaktree b (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete city councillors need to show they are notable above and beyond being a city councillor, and that is not the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as per {{U|RebeccaGreen}}. I think the !deletes can't see the forest for the trees. While individually, some of the sources might be poor, overall there is significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• :There's not a single source here which isn't local, and for someone only notable for being local politician, more is needed. That's standard throughout the project. SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• :One tree isn't different than the others in this case. You could replace A with B in the notability and still get basically the same result. Oaktree b (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete inadequate sources and a bunch of substandard sources remains short of the two good source standard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:

• Delete. Agree with {{u|Astaire}} and the source analysis that clearly shows that the subject does not meet WP:NPOL. RangersRus (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: City councillors are not inherently notable per NPOL#1 and the sources presented do not meet NPOL#2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:58, 10 March 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.