Deletion of Lizette Parker (2nd nomination)

Comment: per  and {{u|Enigmaman
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: meets .  Second nomination by Rusf10 in such a short time seems a bit y, although I confess to not seeing what the POINT is in trying, twice, to delete a solidly-sourced article with SIGCOV of this life and career
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:POINT)

Comment: That's five Keep votes in a row saying she passes  without any discussion as to why. I know we're heading to a keep or a no consensus, but would someone please explain to me why she passes ? I'm actually interested as an AfD voter as to what I'm missing. ''Almost everything'' I can find about her relates to her untimely passing. All of the links on her page reference her obituary except one, and that one is a dead link. The articles I can find that mention her work are not about her, but mention her in passing. Why does this pass 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  and  as not independently notable other than being a politician. The only sources are either obituary pieces or relate to her election. Only her death seems to have generated a lot of coverage, which makes sense as it's somewhat rare for a mayor to die in office, but I also think there's a  issue with that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: She was not one of the first African American women to serve as mayor in the US — holy hell, she wasn't even ''close'' to that — or even in her own state; the article's only claim is that she was the first African American woman mayor in her own ''county''. But a historic distinction that's limited to her own ''county'' is not a notability freebie — ''every'' place that has mayors at all will ''always'' eventually have its own local "first member of X group" mayor for virtually ''every'' possible value of X, so that isn't a magic notability bullet if the historicity of the distinction doesn't break wider than just her own local area. She would have to be |reliably sourceable as significantly ''more'' notable than most other smalltown mayors — which the sourcing here is not showing, as it's limited almost entirely to the routine obituaries in her own local media that every mayor of everywhere could always show when they die. The only very slight evidence of beyond-local notability here is the fact that one citation is to ''The Root (magazine)|The Root'', a more widely-distributed and widely-read publication — but even that citation is just a short ''blurb'', not genuinely substantive coverage, so it's not a magic GNG pass all by itself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Still meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The coverage of the subject is the definition of local and routine.  demands "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time", and the sourcing here fails to achieve that. An obituary is simply not enough to push this over the line. &spades
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)