Deletion of Richard Griffin (Councilmember)

Comment: nbsp; Our guidelines do not say, "&nbsp;'routine' means worthless".&nbsp; President Obama and the War in Iraq are "routinely" covered too, routine coverage means that we can expect that there is enough material about a topic to write an encyclopedia article.&nbsp; Our policy at eletion policy#Alternatives to deletion suggests the next step to consider if a topic is not notable is, where can it be merged?&nbsp; And we have at least one reasonable target, the Richmond City Council.&nbsp; If we re-interpret the delete !votes to be ''merge'' !votes, we can also re-interpret the essence of the delete argument by recalling that |WP:N is not satisfied just because a topic passes , the topic must also be "worthy of notice".&nbsp; So we can still properly ask the question, "Is the topic "worthy of notice?" and question whether or not the topic should have a stand-alone article&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:D||WP:GNG)

Comment: A Richmond councilman fails olitician, and a few obits and other routine coverage isn't enough to make him notable otherwise
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: He fails to meet , the brief obituaries say he was "never controversial", which politely suggests he was a jobbing councillor who did nothing (apart from dying) that would attract attention
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: One of a series of cut-and-paste deletion nominations by this nominator. No indication that  has been followed in this case. I also find it offensive and contrary to policy that independent, published coverage in the local press is deemed not "independent enough." This is not NewYorkCitypedia or Londonpedia or Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)