Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaya Comer-Schwartz

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 no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaya Comer-Schwartz

[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)

Article about a borough councillor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, the councils of London boroughs are not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over Wikipedia's inclusion criteria just because the person exists -- it's a valid notability claim for an article that's sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, but not an instant inclusion guarantee that overrides any sourcing problems.
But the referencing here consists entirely of a mixture of primary sources (her member/staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own party and the council) that aren't support for notability at all, and a small smattering of run of the mill coverage in Islington-based community hyperlocals, with not even one hit of citywide or nationalizing coverage shown at all.
Serving on borough councils, even as the leader of the council, simply isn't an "inherent" notability freebie in the absence of much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Upon reevaluation of the article about "Kaya Comer-Schwartz," it is evident that the references provided are from reliable sources. Let's break down the sourcing:

1. The first citation, "Black History Makers: 'They said I profited from tokenism' – Kaya Comer-Schwartz" is a news article on the Islington Gazette, a well-known newspaper founded in 1856.

2. The second citation, "Islington Labour urges government to support low-income households," is from a local news website.

3. The third citation is a primary source from the Labour party itself.

4. The fourth citation, "Cllr Kaya Comer-Schwartz appointed first Black woman Leader of Islington Council," is from The Voice (British newspaper), a national paper and a reliable source.

5. The fifth citation is a primary source from Islington Council's government website.

6. The sixth citation is again a primary source from "Democracy in Islington," a government website.

7. The seventh citation, "Cllr Kaya Comer-Schwartz takes over as leader of Islington Council," is a reliable source from the Islington Gazette.

Furthermore, there is another notable article about Richard Watts (politician), who was succeeded by Kaya Comer-Schwartz in Islington London Borough Council. Upon evaluating these articles and citations, it is clear that notability has been established. The presence of a previous similar councillor's article on Wikipedia also supports the notion that politicians in this council are notable. Thank you. Arhamic (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more reliable and independent citations one from Islington Tribune which is also about Kaya Comer, another citation from NewsinCyprus.com, one from BBC and more. Arhamic (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources being reliable isn't the only test they have to satisfy — the sources do have to be reliable, yes, but they also have to be covering her in a context that would satisfy the notability criteria for her occupation. For example, every local councillor in every town and city on the planet can always show some evidence of local coverage in their local media — but every local councillor in every town and city on the planet is not always notable enough for Wikipedia. We're not just looking for whether local media coverage exists in a councillor's local media — we're looking for whether a councillor's coverage establishes a compelling reason to treat her as a special case who occupies a special niche of elevated importance over and above most other local councillors, to the point that people on the other side of the world need to read an article about her. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is only generalisation about content, it does not specifically evaluate the sources presented. She's notable because she's being written about with SIGCOV in reliable sources. The sources do not focus on her presiding over a council meeting, or reading minutes of a previous meeting (which could rightly be considered routine), they cover her celebrating Irish revolutionaries, being the first black leader of the council etc. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every single local politician gets some level of SIGCOV in reliable sources, which is why we've written WP:NOT... SportingFlyer T·C 10:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable borough councillor - almost all of the coverage is utterly routine that every borough councillor would receive and while it looks like she was covered in Cyprus, the website says the article was "automatically added to the system." It also reads promotionally, like a CV, and if kept needs to be rewritten, but could also be deleted on PROMO concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 22:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a "borough councillor" but a Black-Jewish Leader of a municipal area with 200,000+ people in one of the most significant metropolies on the planet. (FWIW, that population is almost three times the average UK parliamentary consituency). More than adequate sourcing available to satisfy the GNG: eg Town Hall leader: ‘Racism left me feeling worthless’, Cllr Kaya Comer-Schwartz appointed first Black woman Leader of Islington Council, Plaque unveiled in London honouring Irish revolutionary Michael Collins. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first article is the local paper covering local politics so therefore routine, the appointment is clearly routine coverage, and the latter isn't significant coverage, just an article on an event she attended. SportingFlyer T·C 10:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number of people who do or don't live in the entity that a politician represents is not relevant to our notability criteria for politicians at all. An MP isn't notable because of the number of voters in his or her own constituency, an MP is notable because he or she sits in a national body whose law-making jurisdiction encompasses a whole country, and thus has national authority and relevance beyond just their own constituency alone. You can live in the Shetlands and still have every bit as much need to know and read about Caroline Dinenage as anybody in Gosport does, because as a national MP she still has equal impact on your life no matter where in the UK you live — so her notability doesn't hinge on how many voters live in Gosport, it hinges on how many people live in the entire United Kingdom. So a borough councillor isn't of equivalent notability to an MP just because the borough's population might match that of an individual parliamentary constituency, because the borough council's area of jurisdiction isn't equivalent to that of parliament. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, that's not the crucial element (hence "FWIW"), it's the sourcing. Nevertheless, population numbers can be a factor when considering notability, it's right there in WP:POLOUTCOMES: "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She's clearly not a mayor, though, and mayors of regionally prominent cities are generally kept because they'll receive coverage not just in their city, but outside their city... SportingFlyer T·C 22:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"She's clearly not a mayor" ... can I suggest reading this and this to understand the difference between the Leader of Islington Council (primarily political) and the Mayor of Islington (primarily ceremonial). There are sources showing coverage outside of Islington. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need - I understand how it works, especially given I'm writing this comment from Islington. SportingFlyer T·C 09:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Former rate payer myself. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had been leery about the possibility of notability for someone in this role, but the reality of the article is that the role is notable and the in-depth independent sources available from national sources demonstrate that the notability standard has been met. I acknowledge that some of the sourcing is drawn from local publications, but in totality the standard is met. Alansohn (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable political leader, valid claim of notability, passes WP:GNG due to:

https://www.islingtontribune.co.uk/article/well-be-good-listeners-says-council-leader-as-she-invites-residents-to-say-what-they-really-think in Islington Tribune
https://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/21228276.councillors-grandad-survived-nazi-concentration-camp/ in Islington Gazette (relies somewhat on primary content, but still proves some notability)
https://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/article/inequality-cannot-be-right-says-boroughs-first-black-leader in Camden New Journal

Combined with lots of interviews, primary sources, and less significant coverage, this all adds up to enough for me to !vote keep. I recognise number 2 above is open to debate, but WP:THREE isn't a policy, and even if you disagree with that, I'll invoke WP:IAR and say the existence of this article about a Council's first Black women leader is a net positive to the encyclopedia, obviously information that people would seek out, not WP:PROMO and useful content. CT55555(talk) 23:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all hyper-local publications. Local political leaders are rarely notable enough for Wikipedia, and we generally require at least some non-local news on them which pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We require a lot more than just run of the mill local coverage in the local media to deem local officeholders notable enough for an international encyclopedia — we would need to see nationalizing or internationalizing coverage, or at the very least reams and reams more than just three hits of local coverage. As I said above, every local politician in the world can show a handful of coverage in their local media — so we're not looking for just the bare minimum needed to verify that she exists, we're looking for a depth and volume and range of coverage that marks her out as a special case of greater notability than everybody else. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sorry, but I'm simply not seeing sufficient coverage that isn't extremely local and routine for an elected member of a municipal government. I would be willing to accept the size-of-constituency argument in some cases, but with all due respect, Islington simply isn't large enough for that. The equivalent for all of London might be a different matter. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If not kept, this article should be redirected to Islington London Borough Council as an WP:ATD. Suriname0 (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The position is of a local councillor and the coverage is ultra local to Islington. There is no national nor intenational coverage to indicate it passes WP:SIGCOV. There is nothing here that indicates the person is notable. It has been accepted that local coverage is sufficient to satisfy notability. At best it satisfies WP:V and that is the limit of it. scope_creep^Talk 09:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was tempted to close this as "no consensus", but I think one more go round, analysing the sources already given in the article, and this debate, would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Routine coverage about her political dealings. Not seeing the required notability. We'd need a heck of a lot more talking about her to be at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Irish Post and the BBC are not "hyperlocal" sources. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The councillor attended the unveiling of the plaque which likely makes the that particular source WP:PRIMARY and of no use to establishing notability. It wouldn't be significant coverage. It is also commerating the Irish community in Islington, make it ultra-local coverage. The BBC is just up the road, and does a enormous amount of London reporting on all sorts of stuff that never reported on in the regions, unfortunately. I don't see that significant either. If it was the BBC India covering the event, then yes, that would be ideal. The two of them are confirmation that she not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 21 September 2023 7:25 (UTC)

London constitutes around 15% of the UK population, we do live in the digital era and it's not as though the journalists sitting in Broadcasting House are too lazy to do something other than head up Euston Rd to find stories; the scale of news items about London is a reflection of its size and *international* significance. The Irish Post is a *national* news outlet covering issues related to the *international* Irish diaspora and the cited story has municipal, national and international connections. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason it was reported in the Irish Post was because the Irish Ambassador was there, not because of the councillor. That is the test. If he wasn't there it wouldn't have been reported. It is WP:PRIMARY. All of it is local to Islington. scope_creep^Talk 12:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no basis for parsing the editorial decisions of the Irish Post. WP:PRIMARY is not policy against their use, it is about how they are used: "Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense" (see also WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that enough of the sources are about her and not the position. If this is chose to not be kept I think that there could be a future for this so a redirect would be better than outright deletion. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:37, 26 September 2023 (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.