Teresa Harding: I could not find sufficient sources with significant coverage to demonstrate that this article meets the GNG .  In the article, only the Brisbane Times may count – the rest are electoral results and a government (CCC) report that doesn't mention the subject.  As part of WP:BEFORE , I found two articles [8] [9] , neither of which constitutes SIGCOV of the subject.  Toadspike ( talk ) 11:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This seems similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Eden , a discussion on a different mayor article created by the same editor.  Toadspike ( talk ) 11:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Added some further sources which I think come under SIGCOV Totallynotarandomalt69 ( talk ) 12:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Toadspike if the "Delete" vote wins can we instead redirect to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland similar to what happened with the pages of Amy Eden and Jilly Gibson ?  Totallynotarandomalt69 ( talk ) 23:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, a redirect would also be appropriate.  Toadspike ( talk ) 13:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , Military ,  and Australia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV based on the cited sources.  I'd need to see a more convincing source analysis by the nominator to be convinced otherwise.  4meter4 ( talk ) 17:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reviewing this nomination after some time, I would like to thank Totallynotarandomalt69 for adding further good sources that provide significant coverage.  This article now comes close to proving notability.  However, per WP:GNG , Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability .  Recounting the sources, only ABC News and The Courier Mail clearly meet the GNG.  I do not believe that the Brisbane Times article provides significant coverage (four sentences are about the subject herself, most of which is simply summarizing electoral results), and the government sources are not SIGCOV.  Thus, I still believe the article should be deleted/redirected and will not withdraw my nomination, though I understand if editors disagree.  Toadspike ( talk ) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Ipswich is not a large enough place to assume its mayors are notable, and I'm only seeing local coverage.  SportingFlyer T · C 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete What we like in articles about a local officeholder is information that illustrates the impact of their tenure in office.  What projects did they champion, what is their legacy.  Size of city is not an important factor.  Like the nominator, I do not see that significant sources exists.  -- Enos733 ( talk ) 03:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Nothing to establish GNG here.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 17:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources are pretty good and she's notable in her own right, 230k people definitely isn't an insignificant number.  AmNowEurovision ( talk ) 05:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete there is precedence for mayors not holding enough political signifance in a 3 tier system of government, see https://w.wiki/9gw7 Teraplane ( talk ) 23:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NPOL .  Lacking significant coverage to meet WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect