- 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 speedy delete. Speedy G11 as political advertisement DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Rachel Blaney ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet wiki politician standards. Wgolf ( talk) 19:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the shortfalls in this page. I have resolved both concerns you mentioned, by inserting two citations and linking other pages to this page. Let me know if you see other problems. -GrahamHMay
- Delete GrahamHMay, the main issue is whether she meets WP:NOTABILITY; principally WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. I couldn't find any evidence that she does yet (perhaps WP:TOOSOON). Boleyn ( talk) 19:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I disagree - she has done some important work in the past (independent of her candidacy), and is currently a very prominent member of our region (which I am from). People deserve to have a relatively impartial source to get information about where she comes from and what she stands for. Furthermore, if others have information to add, they deserve a forum to do so. I have populated the page with five references now, to demonstrate the point. -GrahamHMay
- Delete per nom. Fails POLITICIAN, BIO, GNG, etc. No doubt a credit to her community, but Wikipedia is not here to provide a forum. Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as far as being notable in an encyclopedic sense I couldn't find much in the way of 3rd party references to support the claim. The coverage from the article references is really temporary. Whenever there are elections happening good coverage is allways needed at Wikinews to synthesize multiple reports into a single narrative. but as far as encyclopedic? it doesn't meet that threshold for me. but who knows what the future holds, she may end up the president of Canada and be notable in the future but for today, delete. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 12:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Looks more promotional that notable. Sources do not really provide anything of note. AlbinoFerret 20:20, 2 April 2015 (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.