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. The delete arguments are more compelling here. If the subject is elected in the forthcoming Canadian Federal Election, a request can be made to WP:REFUND the page. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Kimberly Fawcett (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only stated or sourced claim of notability is as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election -- but as always, the notability test for people in federal elections is winning the seat, not just being a candidate for it. The only other potential basis for notability here is a court case stemming from a car accident, which just makes her a WP:BLP1E and is not a reason why she would pass the ten-year test as a topic of enduring notability -- and the claims that she's been a para-athlete are not referenced to any evidence that she's achieved anything that would get her over WP:NATHLETE at all (where the notability test is not just "every athlete who exists" either.) As always, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if she wins -- but Wikipedia is not a free webhost for candidates' campaign brochures, and nothing here is a reason why she would already qualify for an article today. GNG is not just "any subject whose name generates two or more media hits", but rather it tests for additional issues such as the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about her, and the context of what she's getting coverage for. Bearcat ( talk) 20:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - Significant enough that her case was all over the news and is the reason that she's running against Bill Blair in the 2019 Canadian Federal Election. Kevinhanit ( talk) 20:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Her case was "all over the news" in a strictly WP:BLP1E way, not in a way that would already get her over the ten-year test for enduring significance independently of whether she wins the election or not. If she wins the seat, then obviously it will be relevant background on a person who passes WP:NPOL — but if she doesn't win the seat, the court case isn't its own reason why people would still be looking for her anyway. Bearcat ( talk) 18:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Coverage is about her lawsuit which falls under WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Doesn't meet any SNG. Of course if she's elected to the Canadian Parliament in October, she will be notable as a politician--but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa ( talk) 19:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Combination of athlete status in major competition and abundance of secondary sources indicates WP:GNG even if no specific criteria is met. Further reasoning: though her military service would not pass notability per WP:SNG, meets the spirit of "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novabrahm ( talk • contribs) 05:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply

The Invictus Games aren't a "major competition" on the level of the Olympics. Participating athletes might be notable if they get press coverage about their accomplishments at the games, but do not get automatic notability freebies just for being there — but none of the sources here are about her accomplishments as an athlete at all, indicating that she's not notable for that. And what the sources are covering her for just makes her a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat ( talk) 23:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:TOOSOON. If she wins the seat, then this article can be recreated, but as of now the car accident coverage, being a minor athlete, and a political candidate are not enough to satisfy any notability guidelines. Newshunter12 ( talk) 06:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep Clearly notable enough for me. Kevinhanit ( talk) 23:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I struck your most recent vote because you can only vote once per AfD. You can comment as often as you want, but only vote once. Papaursa ( talk) 00:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply

WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid reason for keeping the article. Sandals1 ( talk) 16:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• delete Definitely not notable as an athlete. Her lawsuit was one event and doesn't make her notable. If she wins her election, then the article can be recreated. Sandals1 ( talk) 16:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:NPOL fail that is currently a WP:BLP1E. If she wins the article can be recreated. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 15:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOL. Bondegezou ( talk) 15:46, 22 June 2019 (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.