- 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 delete. personally I think that major party candidates for national positions should be considered notable, but the consensus has never agreed with me. I close according to the clear consensus on this one. DGG ( talk ) 09:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Gwen Graham
- Gwen Graham ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
OK, this article has a super complicated history. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwen Graham was closed as Delete in March 2013. It was apparently restored after a WP:DRV claim ( Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 October), but unfortunately, that claim stipulated that the article had been improperly speedily deleted, which is not the case. So, technically, this should be a WP:CSD#G6 deletion for housekeeping, but with the complicated history, it will require fairly extensive review by an admin. Even if the DRV restoration is valid (which I doubt), the person still doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 02:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete: This article clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. The only sources I can find for Graham are related to her congressional candidacy. Champaign Supernova ( talk) 04:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I see, examining the history more closely, that the original AFD'ed article was deleted on 5 March 2013, and a subsequently recreated article was speedily deleted ( WP:CSD#A7) on 23 October 2013, only to be restored per WP:DRV on 24 October 2013. The argument at DRV at the time was that politicians running for office have a "credible assertion of notability sufficient to avoid an A7 deletion". However, as a recreation of a deleted article, this article was likely eligible for WP:CSD#G4 at the time of its recreation. In any case, I don't believe anything has changed in the situation (this person has not subsequently actually won any election, they are simply running yet another campaign), so I don't think the conclusion of the first AFD should be overturned. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- An unelected candidate does not qualify for an article on Wikipedia just for being an unelected candidate; if she wasn't already notable enough for an article for other things before she became a candidate, then under WP:NPOL she does not become notable enough for an article until she wins election to a notable office. This article, however, does not make any substantive claim that she passes that condition — it's effectively nothing more than a campaign brochure, which per WP:NOTADVERTISING is exactly what politicians, elected or not, are not allowed to have on here. No prejudice against recreation in the fall if she wins the seat, but right now she's a delete. Bearcat ( talk) 18:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete: Subject of article is not notable. CFredkin ( talk) 22:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Candidates for office are generally not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete. personally I think that major party candidates for national positions should be considered notable, but the consensus has never agreed with me. I close according to the clear consensus on this one. DGG ( talk ) 09:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Gwen Graham
- Gwen Graham ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
OK, this article has a super complicated history. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwen Graham was closed as Delete in March 2013. It was apparently restored after a WP:DRV claim ( Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 October), but unfortunately, that claim stipulated that the article had been improperly speedily deleted, which is not the case. So, technically, this should be a WP:CSD#G6 deletion for housekeeping, but with the complicated history, it will require fairly extensive review by an admin. Even if the DRV restoration is valid (which I doubt), the person still doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 02:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete: This article clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. The only sources I can find for Graham are related to her congressional candidacy. Champaign Supernova ( talk) 04:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I see, examining the history more closely, that the original AFD'ed article was deleted on 5 March 2013, and a subsequently recreated article was speedily deleted ( WP:CSD#A7) on 23 October 2013, only to be restored per WP:DRV on 24 October 2013. The argument at DRV at the time was that politicians running for office have a "credible assertion of notability sufficient to avoid an A7 deletion". However, as a recreation of a deleted article, this article was likely eligible for WP:CSD#G4 at the time of its recreation. In any case, I don't believe anything has changed in the situation (this person has not subsequently actually won any election, they are simply running yet another campaign), so I don't think the conclusion of the first AFD should be overturned. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- An unelected candidate does not qualify for an article on Wikipedia just for being an unelected candidate; if she wasn't already notable enough for an article for other things before she became a candidate, then under WP:NPOL she does not become notable enough for an article until she wins election to a notable office. This article, however, does not make any substantive claim that she passes that condition — it's effectively nothing more than a campaign brochure, which per WP:NOTADVERTISING is exactly what politicians, elected or not, are not allowed to have on here. No prejudice against recreation in the fall if she wins the seat, but right now she's a delete. Bearcat ( talk) 18:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete: Subject of article is not notable. CFredkin ( talk) 22:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Candidates for office are generally not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- 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.