- 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. Sandstein 19:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Shari Cantor
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Shari Cantor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was deleted 2 years ago, however speedy was declined since there are subsequent new sources. The issue is those sources are only more of the same routine coverage of a local political candidate. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 12:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 14:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep It now passes WP:GNG when it did not two years ago. Since it passes GNG the nominators claim that it doesnt meet WP:NPOL is spurious and irrelevant as WWP:NPOL is a lower standard than WP:GNG. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 14:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Even if we want to use WP:NPOL the "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage” standard is met... Articles like
www
.courant .com /hartford-magazine /hc-hm-shari-cantor-west-hartford-mayor-20190428-20190422-euj3b27qefgyhidjekcook77xi-story .html are *not,* as has been claimed, routine coverage. Subject meets both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, but again meeting WP:NPOL is irrelevant if WP:GNG is met. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 14:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:GNG. They have sufficient sources across the internet to make them notable. As stated under WP:NPOL (as Horse Eye Jack pointed out above) "...such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." If WP:NPOL is the only reason for deletion, this doesn't need to be up for discussion in the first place. Dontaskjustwonder ( talk) 17:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG. Adequate indicia of notability. NPOL is an SNG, which is a guide to GNG, not something that supercedes it for deletion. Meeting either NPOL or GNG is enough to keep, don't need both. Montanabw (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2019 (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 keep. Sandstein 19:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Shari Cantor
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Shari Cantor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was deleted 2 years ago, however speedy was declined since there are subsequent new sources. The issue is those sources are only more of the same routine coverage of a local political candidate. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 12:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 14:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep It now passes WP:GNG when it did not two years ago. Since it passes GNG the nominators claim that it doesnt meet WP:NPOL is spurious and irrelevant as WWP:NPOL is a lower standard than WP:GNG. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 14:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Even if we want to use WP:NPOL the "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage” standard is met... Articles like
www
.courant .com /hartford-magazine /hc-hm-shari-cantor-west-hartford-mayor-20190428-20190422-euj3b27qefgyhidjekcook77xi-story .html are *not,* as has been claimed, routine coverage. Subject meets both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, but again meeting WP:NPOL is irrelevant if WP:GNG is met. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 14:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:GNG. They have sufficient sources across the internet to make them notable. As stated under WP:NPOL (as Horse Eye Jack pointed out above) "...such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." If WP:NPOL is the only reason for deletion, this doesn't need to be up for discussion in the first place. Dontaskjustwonder ( talk) 17:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG. Adequate indicia of notability. NPOL is an SNG, which is a guide to GNG, not something that supercedes it for deletion. Meeting either NPOL or GNG is enough to keep, don't need both. Montanabw (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2019 (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.