Deletion of Jan H. Gardner

Comment: I was initially split, but I found that those supporting deletion (Bearcat, JPL, Gnome etc.) provided rationales complicit with policy. Being first, to my knowledge, in an otherwise unnotable county office is not in accordance with anything I read at |NPOL and |GNG. I see the "are we running out of server space?" |argument to avoid has also reared its ugly head. A good illusion is made with the ite overkill|cite overkill, but analysis of the sources reveals primary sources, passing mentions, and |routine coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:GNG||WP:ATA||WP:C||WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: I agree with the assessment above that this is WP:ROUTINE coverage for a local politician; the sourcing available fails to meet the requirements set by —the most basic and fundamental criteria—that coverage of the subject must be both |in-depth and |persistent. This is neither
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO||WP:DEPTH||WP:PERSISTENT)

Comment: I moved the article per . See for example references in the article: always without a middle initial. For our discussion, adding the relevant search strings
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article titles (WP:COMMONNAME)

Comment: this well-sourced article per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Some Keep opinions are based on arbitrary assertions rather than policy. It is perhaps necessary to revisit  since folks often invoke it without specifying ''which'' of the  criteria are met. Hey ho, let's go
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOLITICIAN)

Comment: on account of subject failing . The text contains interesting information but |Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOLITICIAN||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: Yikes. She's a local county executive so needs to pass #2 in  or  and she doesn't come close. There are 17 citations in the article. Seven are election results and can be discarded. Of the remaining ten, ''none'' are independently about her outside of the context of her campaign. One is for her own website, one is an opinion piece, one's a primary source from the state of Maryland, one's a four-sentence article on the winners of the seats on the council and mention more than just her, et cetera. The Washington Post is the best source in the entire article and it's an absolute  article. Flagrantly terrible sourcing for a position which needs good sourcing to get past 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:GNG||WP:MILL||WP:NPOL)

Comment: per . She is the first female officeholder, inaugural officeholder, has distinguished career in business. Article is well sourced and adequately cited
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Does not pass  with just news reporting. This |type of office has been shown to be considered non-notable. Just inundating an article with references does not prove notability. I am all for a !vote somewhere to get rid of all admins having only moderators, get rid of all WP:policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines, and have articles on all things known to mankind, but this is not the place. Since we currently have policies, guidelines, and even accepted essays (along with admins) then either these policies and guidelines should be at least considered or a good reason to |ignore all the "rules" given. Being in the news and |newsworthy is not the same as being otability (people)|notable. Citing 25 references that include 2 dead links and a host of news reports does not advance notability. There are seven primary sources (six to Frederick County) and one admitted press release. There are six references to the Washington Post, three to the News-Post, two to the Frederick News, and one to the Baltimore Sun. Three are separate local reportings. I am just noting that of all the references (24 because I took one out and two are dead links) there are seven that can even be considered for notability. ''Six references'' are to mundane news like "New development on small lots would require costly expansions of the County's water and sewer systems.", the "hotly-debated" proposal to build a trash incinerator" that was scrapped, and that the subject will "not recommend raising taxes". How are we doing on the seven acceptable for notability references so far? Here is a Slippery slope|slippery slope problem with this type of article: There are https://www.countyexecutives.org/county-executives-map 3000 counties in the US, in 47 states, and 840 have this form of county government plus Louisiana has 64 parishes. Every single one of them will have a local newspaper, TV channel, or radio station giving the results of elections, news reportings leading up to a winner, and even some post election breaking news. This form of government is not rare just new to this geographical area. Is the claimed notability only because the subject is a woman? If this is true then why did it not make national news? I hate to mention this but as of the 2010 Census women outnumber men so this does not seem to be out of the ordinary in all but nine states. If we are attempting to add "all things in the world" to Wikipedia then lets change the "rules". If we count news reporting, and that she is a woman, we can conjure up notability. Being a "new" political division would be more appropriate on a county article. On the plus side we can agree to this article and open the door to around 900 more blue links. Corrections: 900+ because per user-Rusf10 the Wikipedia:Opening up a can of worms|''first male, then first African-American, first LGBT, etc... would qualify''. This will bolster Wikipedia's article count, new stubs, and coverage statistics, but will likely not be enduringly notable pass the next election
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOLITICIAN||WP:POLOUTCOMES||WP:IGNORE||WP:NOTNEWSPAPER||WP:N)

Comment: County executive" is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over  on every person who holds it — it's a level of office that can get a person into Wikipedia if she can be |referenced well enough to mark her out as a special case over and above most other county executives, but ''not'' a level where every county executive who exists automatically gets in the door. But this is not sourced well enough to make Jan Gardner a special case — it's referenced about 50 per cent to |primary sources, such as her own |self-published campaign website and raw tables of election results that are not evidence of notability in and of themselves, and the half that is media coverage is the purely ''local'' media coverage that's simply and routinely ''expected'' to exist for local county councillors. And no, being the first woman to hold an otherwise non-notable office does not confer an exemption from having to clear the same inclusion standards as any other county councillor, either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:RS||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:SELFPUB)

Comment: county executive fails . While laudably sourced, all coverage is within context of elections to this non-POLOUTCOMES office and is, therefore,  for purposes of establishing notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:POLOUTCOMES||WP:ROUTINE)