Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kay Mousley (2nd nomination)

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 Electoral Commission of South Australia. Mz7 (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Mousley

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite surviving AfD in 2006, and having a notability tag since 2011, there is nothing of note here. Yes she has a bit of news coverage, but it is purely in her role as electoral commissioner, and almost entirely duplicated from Electoral Commission of South Australia and South Australian Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission. It is claimed that she is the first woman to hold the role, and I don't doubt that's true, but I don't see how that gives her notability. In short, just a public servant doing her job, and everything about her job is at the aforementioned articles. Adpete (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Electoral Commission of South Australia. The subject is essentially a single event in their own right, and while they have many mentions in sources, the significant majority are just them doing their job. However, the subject I believe is notable in the context of the activities of the commission and they have made an impact on the commission, including being the first women head, but notability is not inherited. The current article content would fit very nicely into Electoral Commission of South Australia and further there are many more references which would support more in-depth content for the work and contribution the subject has made to the commission and the merge hence also removes any notability inheritance and single event concerns. The subject is definitely a likely search term. Aoziwe (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a redirect to Electoral Commission of South Australia would be a good solution. I've moved the "first female commissioner" sentence to there. Adpete (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Especially given the outcome of the previous discussion, I would appreciate a bit more participation before we redirect this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above discussion. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aoziwe. The key information bits are: her name, being the first woman in the role and how long she held the position. Those have already all been moved, thus a formal merging seems unneeded. It would probably make sense to improve Electoral Commission of South Australia by adding all the electoral commissioners it's had, but that's a quality goal irrelevant here. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everybody above. This is a role that could get a person an article if it could be sourced well enough to get her over WP:GNG for it, but not one that's so "inherently" notable that the mere fact that she held it would exempt her from having to have enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG. But two of the five references here are primary source documents from the electoral commission itself, which are not notability-assisting sources because they're not independent of her, and one is not about her but merely features her giving brief soundbite in an article about something else — while the two that are actually about her are just the initial announcement of her appointment, and the announcement of her resignation, which is not enough to get her over GNG if they're the only genuinely substantive sources that can be shown because there's no ongoing coverage of her work in the role. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. SportingFlyer talk 00:09, 17 May 2018 (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.