From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Catherine Fleming Bruce

Catherine Fleming Bruce (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a writer and political candidate, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing either WP:AUTHOR or WP:NPOL. As always, unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while a non-winning candidate gets to have an article only if either (a) she can demonstrate that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, or (b) she can mount a credible claim that her candidacy was a special case of significantly greater notability than most other people's candidacies.
But this demonstrates neither of those things: her prior work as a writer and historical preservationist is referenced solely to a podcast and a primary source, which do not establish the encyclopedic notability of that work, and the election campaign is referenced solely to the purely expected volume of run of the mill campaign coverage that every candidate in any election can always show, which does not establish a reason why her candidacy would be of more enduring significance than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat ( talk) 13:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you for these notes - did manage to find additional sources, which I was unable to do for some of the other former candidate pages I created! The sources suggest that the book received significant critical attention. ProfessorKaiFlai ( talk) 06:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes to the article since the AFD nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. I see reliable sources publishing about her and the argument to keep is well articulated above. CT55555( talk) 15:48, 29 November 2022 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Catherine Fleming Bruce

Catherine Fleming Bruce (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a writer and political candidate, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing either WP:AUTHOR or WP:NPOL. As always, unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while a non-winning candidate gets to have an article only if either (a) she can demonstrate that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, or (b) she can mount a credible claim that her candidacy was a special case of significantly greater notability than most other people's candidacies.
But this demonstrates neither of those things: her prior work as a writer and historical preservationist is referenced solely to a podcast and a primary source, which do not establish the encyclopedic notability of that work, and the election campaign is referenced solely to the purely expected volume of run of the mill campaign coverage that every candidate in any election can always show, which does not establish a reason why her candidacy would be of more enduring significance than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat ( talk) 13:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you for these notes - did manage to find additional sources, which I was unable to do for some of the other former candidate pages I created! The sources suggest that the book received significant critical attention. ProfessorKaiFlai ( talk) 06:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes to the article since the AFD nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. I see reliable sources publishing about her and the argument to keep is well articulated above. CT55555( talk) 15:48, 29 November 2022 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook