The result was keep. - Mailer D iablo 16:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell, comments along the lines of "come back if she's elected". She wasn't. This is not the same content (so not a G4 speedy), but there is still no claim to notability other than an unsuccessful candidacy in an election. Per WP:BIO we keep successful candidates, not failed ones. Debate is currently going on in three separate places, so hopefully we can collect it all here. Guy 20:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete for failing
WP:BIO and
WP:C&E. While technically only a proposal, failure to adhere to
WP:C&E has already been used as a criterion to delete the articles of other legitimate House candidates. I don't see where "Well, this race is too important" is a particularly compelling argument. The entire point of
WP:C&E was to stop this sort of
"some animals are more important than others" creation of articles for people who haven't even won election yet. --
Aaron 22:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to abstain due to
SandyGeorgia's creation of
Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006, for which multiple people ought to be awarding her barnstars. --
Aaron
18:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them.
Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written.
*Delete per nom --
Tbeatty 01:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Duplicate vote struck.
Septentrionalis
01:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. - Mailer D iablo 16:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell, comments along the lines of "come back if she's elected". She wasn't. This is not the same content (so not a G4 speedy), but there is still no claim to notability other than an unsuccessful candidacy in an election. Per WP:BIO we keep successful candidates, not failed ones. Debate is currently going on in three separate places, so hopefully we can collect it all here. Guy 20:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete for failing
WP:BIO and
WP:C&E. While technically only a proposal, failure to adhere to
WP:C&E has already been used as a criterion to delete the articles of other legitimate House candidates. I don't see where "Well, this race is too important" is a particularly compelling argument. The entire point of
WP:C&E was to stop this sort of
"some animals are more important than others" creation of articles for people who haven't even won election yet. --
Aaron 22:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to abstain due to
SandyGeorgia's creation of
Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006, for which multiple people ought to be awarding her barnstars. --
Aaron
18:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them.
Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written.
*Delete per nom --
Tbeatty 01:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Duplicate vote struck.
Septentrionalis
01:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
reply