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 redirect to Dade City, Florida. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Penix[edit]

Eunice Penix (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)

Can't see where this minor councilperson from a 6,000 person town passes WP:POLITICIAN. No assertion of notability beyond being elected to the minor local office. Was PROD'd and CSD'd earlier in the year and the author contested it without any real reason beyond claiming the noms were WP:BITEy. Can't see any significant coverage on the subject. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (or AT A MINIMUM redirect to Dade City, Florida) - Eunice Penix was the mayor (now a Commissioner) of the county seat of Pasco County, Florida and is covered in three articles (IMO this covers "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" under WP:POLITICIAN). At a minimum, this should be redirected to Dade City, Florida per WP:CHEAP. Articles about Penix include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] and [17] and [18] (complete with brief biography). Some of these articles discuss Penix's opposition to water rationing and her support of pay raises for politicians. Need I add more references?--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, just adding references won't help. Nobody said there is no sources or that she doesn't exist. What the article lacks is SIGNIFICANT coverage by third party sources.. Her office is a minor one, so simply occupying it won't get her past notability.Niteshift36 (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Looks like we'll need to add to the article more information about Penix based on what the references state, unless the references, or the information contained therein itself is in question. Also, is a redirect being considered as a possibility?--Jax 0677 (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is not that the article doesn't contain enough information, but that the sources that you listed above don't contain enough information about Penix for an article to be written on their basis. None of them are actually about her, except for some routine coverage of her candidacies, but they simply mention her in passing in their coverage of local political issues. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, is a redirect being considered?--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again you're having two different conversations. You want to discuss addinig a ton of useless sources and then act like you are proposing a redirect. Normally I'm open to redirects, but in this case I'd say no. This person is a minor politician in a small town. They are an unlikely search term. Additonally, this person is so non-notable, they were being used as an example of how non-notable people get articles. And please, spare me the wikilink to CHEAP again. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply - I have just expanded the article with further details about Penix's career and votes. Reference 18 contains significant details about Penix. Also, WP:POLITICIAN states "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion". For this reason, if this article is not kept for some reason, it should be redirected somewhere. Also, what proof is there that the references do not contain significant information about Penix? If this article were to be redirected, in exactly what article would this reliably sourced information about Penix be placed?--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • You have it backwards my friend. I don't need to prove a negative. Notability is not presumed. Notability must be established, thus YOU need to show the significant coverage. You seem confused about the difference between reliable sources and notablity. Just because you can find a newspaper mention that someone voted for a park or expanding a water plant doesn't make then (or that event) notable. Simply finding their name in the news doesn't do it either. For example, the public information officer from a police department will often have their name in the paper. That doesn't make them notable. A blurb about a candidate or some mentions in the local paper aren't significant coverage. Some of the sources you posted above aren't even coverage of her AT ALL, let alone significant. The very first one is an article about a crime and it merely mentions the fact that one of the people involved is related to her. That is a wonderful example of something that is NOT significant coverage. I know exactly what POLITICAN states and she fails it. Nor does your notion that it makes this a redirect since the office involved here is so minor that it doesn't have a wikipedia article. What you call "significant" will not meet most experienced editors definition of significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In the article, I have stated what Penix has done and where it is covered. It is up to the community now. Regarding "two different conversations", my first choice is to keep the article, and my SECOND choice is to redirect it.--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is my friend, yes it is. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to this discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Village Pump Notification[edit] NOTIFICATION: WP:VPP has received a notification of the discussions that relate to this page and the policy of WP:BLP1E. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#How to apply WP:BLP1E or not [19]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yes, if you want to go discuss somethign that has absolutely jackshit with this discussion, go to that link. You can also go here Talk:Shoot (professional wrestling) to discuss something else that has nothing to do with this AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Reply - Civility please Niteshift...--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Those who aren't civil (including their passive-aggressive silliness) shouldn't expect it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Reply - Not sure what you're talking about. You are the one using expletives on here in a non-encyclopedic manner...--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] You don't understand? Color me surprised. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break[edit]

• Delete Not notable. She is a commissioner in a small town. Her involvement in local matters is typical of what most commission members in a small town might do. She has not been involved in any scandal, but even if she had been, it would have been a tempest in a teapot. If she is notable, then so are the other Dade City commissioners, but they aren’t noteworthy by Wikipedia standards either. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To Tupelo's comment, if a local politician has significant coverage, they meet "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" per WP:POLITICIAN. How are the nine separate references I have outlined in addition to the three or more that Niteshift deleted not significant? I would consider "Mayor Pro-Tem" a major local political figure. Reference 18 shown above gives a significant biography of Penix. Also, do we really want to crowd the Dade City, FL article with information about Penix? Additionally, there is no reason under the ten points of WP:RFD#DELETE for this redirect to be deleted (if I am mistaken, please advise).

    Also, the NOTIFICATION above has been deleted twice by a user involved in this discussion. If an uninvolved admin thinks it should be deleted, then and only then should we be obscuring comments like this that may be relevant to the discussion.--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • It has been deleted because it doesn't pertaion to this discussion. It is simply a disruption. There is a discussion about it on the talk page. Feel free to go there. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - If the injecture is not legitimate, then an uninvolved administrator can remove the NOTIFICATION.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The mayor of Dade City, plus plenty of news hits. This definitely meets WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. §FreeRangeFrog 22:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the mayor of Dade City and never has been but even the mayor is just one of the five commissioners, with the same vote as the other four. As for the local news hits, the other commissioners, and all other commissioners in all other small towns, would have a similar number of local news hits. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I wouldn't exactly call the SPTimes, TBOnline nor Pasco Times local to Dade City. Also, I don't see how "all other commissioners in all other small towns, would have a similar number of local news hits" applies to this discussion. My mistake, "Mayor Pro-Tem".--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The links are to Pasco county sections of Pasco county editions of SPTimes, TBOnline not those papers' main editions or sections, that is why I call them local publications. By the way, I see evidence of sock puppetry. You said it was your mistake about calling her mayor, and yet it was FreeRangeFrog who I was correcting. I caught you. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Uh, are you saying I'm a sockpuppet of someone? Or someone of me? Listen, no offense but that's pretty low even for AfD. Why don't you take it to WP:SPI and let's get it over with? Because making accusations like those are, IMO, a sneaky way to influence !voting. §FreeRangeFrog 02:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply - Say it again FreeRangeFrog!--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • False accusation - Tupelo, if you read my second statement "Eunice Penix was the mayor (now a Commissioner)", you will see that I also said mayor. Care to back up your accusation with more evidence?--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless, she isn't the mayor now and the "pro-tem" part is short for pro tempore, meaning temporary. Mayor pro-tem usually functions in the absence of an actual mayor.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable per WP:POLITICIAN....William 01:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm leaning to keep on this one, but at the moment I am looking over some of the sources given and they don't seem to be actually about this particular person. I do think it is disingenuous to say that somebody is not notable just because they were a small town mayor. If there is something that can be called a reliable source (newspaper accounts to qualify towards that end... if they are substantially about the topic) the notability requirement certainly can be met. The only reason why somebody from a small town isn't notable has nothing to do with the size of the town, but rather if there simply are sources of information from which to write this article in the first place. Invoking WP:POLITICIAN is contrary to deletion policy by itself other than to suggest that some high quality sources may be difficult to find. In this case, if a particular municipal commissioner was outspoken enough to be the subject of several articles and if details about their mayoral term in office were reported, it would be notable... regardless of the size of the town.

  Find those sources though. So far from all of the sources I've seen either have just a very small biographical outline (about a sentence or two) or articles where she voted for or against legislation which was the primary focus of the article. In the case of the home invasion robbery, she was merely mentioned as the mother of the victim... something interesting in terms of a biography, but none the less not really much of a source to count toward notability. I don't see any articles that really talk about this person as the focus of the article. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Robert, nobody is saying that a small town mayor can't be notable. The point about the office is that it is not one that is considered inherently notable (like a governor). There is no lack of media outlets in the Tampa Bay area. There simply hasn't been significant coverage on here because....wait for it....she just isn't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary. What I see are assertions that just because she is from a small town that she isn't notable because the town isn't notable. That in fact is the basis of the nomination. There is one source I would say counts towards notability, which can be found here: [20] Beyond that, I haven't found anything. Usually the threshold is 2-3 quality sources at a minimum, of which there seems to be just one source of information. Preferably it would be useful to have sources from multiple authors or publishers (aka other newspapers or a TV interview or something). That is the standard which should be used, not some quip about the hayseed backwater of civilization that for some reason doesn't fit your taste. An objective quest to find sources and failing is a justification to declare that notability requirements have not been met. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry Robert, but you are mistaken. the basis of the nomination is that she is not notable. She fails the politician criteria and there is a lack of significant coverage about her. THAT is the reason I nominated this. for you to claim I had another motive essentially calls me a liar. Now, if you'd like to come right out and do so, go for it. Otherwise, I'd thank you to not tell me what the basis of my nomination is. I grant you that I did mention the size of the town andn the particular office, which I have clearly explained was in response to the fact that certain offices are considered "inherently notable" and this would not be one of those offices. And politicians in smaller cities have been notable because of things that happened. This woman simply isn't one of them. A vote to cut this or fund that might get a mention or two in the news, but there is no enduring interest in it. Half of this article is WP:RECENTISM. The fact that she is in the coverage area of a major media market and we are still struggling for significant coverage should be an indicator, especially after multiple terms in office. What we mainly have is perfunctory coverage of candidate bios and council meeting recaps. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say that there aren't any sources. I pointed one out, which is a start. I would agree that a small town politician might raise some warning flags to suggest other sources ought to be found to establish notability. It may be possible that some interview of this particular person exists that goes into biographical details, so I think it is wrong to shut down the discussion and simply pontificate that such sources simply don't exist, but I'd agree that they do need to be found. This particular woman is in the public eye and seems to have some interesting things happen in her life that it might be worth spending a little bit of time (as I have) to try and actually find some of those sources before going half-cocked and simply pronouncing this topic as non-notable. The converse would also be true... as just because somebody was governor of Ohio or North Dakota doesn't mean they necessarily deserve a Wikipedia article either. If you can't find those reliable sources which provide substantial information about the person from which to build the article, it really shouldn't be written. It would be unlikely to happen for recent politicians, but for historical figures I think that could definitely be true, and I have seen red links for some significant politicians simply because sources have not been gathered to write articles about such people. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No sir, I did not say there are no sources. I said none of the sources provide significant coverage. (maybe the bold type will help) Those are two very different things. I did look for sources. I haven't seen significant coverage of her. Actually, POLITICIAN does make the case that certain offices will be inherently notable, but that is beside the point since it doesn't make that case here. You've made a lot of incorrect claims about my motives, the basis of the nom, what research I did before or what is "half-cocked". Frankly, I don't think you;ve assumed good faith at all. I think you've assumed bad faith from the start and have produced no real evidence to support your assumptions and allegations. So how about this Robert: Please state a policy based reason it should be kept or deleted? That would probably be more productive. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to this discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reverting of Village Pump Discussion[edit] The comment about the Village Pump Discussion above has been reverted 3 times by the exact same user. I have started this section to discuss the relevance of this link [21] and whether it should be kept in the AfD, or if it should be removed by an uninvolved administrator. I see no reason to remove it, as there is no flagrant policy violation in the statement itself, and the statement is not completely nor conclusively irrelevant. Thoughts?--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] You have refused to discuss this and just jammed it in here. Guess what? 3RR applies to you putting this crap back in too. You're simply being a dick because because I nom'd your article. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Reply - Civility please Niteshift, using the "D" word is not encyclopedic in this case. Please show me where I have violated 3RR, because once I am up to 2RR, I hand it off to someone else. You removed the NOTIFICATION 3 times, and the history proves it. Contrarily, there is no proof that I am "being a [EXPLETIVE] because [you] nom'd [my] article" (if I am mistaken, show me where).--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Your response is on the talk page, where it belongs. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Reply - To your response on the talkpage: "Here is your other response: You've got no room to preach civility. Your passive aggressive silliness is most uncivil. And if you'd like, I'll wikilink it when I say you're being a [expletive] . 3RR doesn't only count for a single item, it's any item in the article. I need not prove you're being a [expletive]. It's clear you have sand in your bathing suit over this." I was not aware that 3RR meant doing 3 reverts to one article (not necessarily the same text), so I apologize for that. That being said, I only reverted the text as many times as you did. If I did so fewer times than you did, then WP:BOOMERANG applies to you as well. When I write, I am simply responding to accusations made against me. Also, [WP:expletive] states: "please remember that "[expletive]" is itself an offensive expression which, in accordance with our civility policy, should not be used to refer to specific users. Great caution should therefore be applied when linking to this page, or using other shortcuts such as WP:[expletive] , in relation to the behaviour of particular individuals - doing this is likely to make them feel that you are grossly insulting them."--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Return to the subject at hand[edit]

• Delete as the nom says, fails WP:POLITICIAN, simply not notable. This has nothing to do with being from a small town. New York City is the largest city in the US, but I would not support articles on all the city councilpeople, because they, too, are not notable and would fail WP:POLITICIAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minorest of politicians, not notable enough. It's unfortunate that there are attempts to derail this AfD: I looked at that Village pump discussion and it has nothing to do with this at all--it's simply a matter of notability guidelines and coverage. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Support redirect - Despite all of the discussion about whether or not to DELETE the article, there seems to be little discussion about whether or not to redirect the article to Dade City, Florida. I support the redirect per WP:CHEAP.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There you go - fixed both comments. No need to !vote twice and no need for an additional sub-sub-heading. Stalwart111 05:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this is such an unlikely search topic, I don't see where a redirect makes much sense. If this were a case of a minor player in a big event, it would make sense. Here, regardless of how "cheap", it looks like a waste of time. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN and the lack of significant coverage means the subject also fails WP:GNG. No great objection to a redirect, though I think it would be a bit pointless. Also concerned it might encourage recreation of an article later. But whatever. Stalwart111 05:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apology - I apologize for accidentally voting twice. I only meant to add a subsection about the redirect to encourage discussion about the same.--Jax 0677 (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's alright - just can't see the point of a sub-heading after only two comments, especially one with 6 question marks. Just looks messy and a bit like you're trying to dismiss the !votes of the two people before you by "drawing a line under them". I'm sure that's not what you're trying to do so maybe we could do without the (fourth) sub-heading. Stalwart111 11:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - We have routine local coverage. This does not amount to significant coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect as failing WP:POLITICIAN and having only routine local coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2012 (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.