Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Kennedy

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Kennedy

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

City clerk, lacking coverage in reliable sources,fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG Valenciano (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local offices such as this are inherently non-notable, barring significant third party coverage. In this case, there is none. DarkAudit (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep - nomination to delete should cite WP policy rather than personal bias of the nominator (i.e. please define "such as this are inherently non-notable" and where in WP policies deletion is warranted.) -Davodd (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that, WP:POLITICIAN: she fails part one as she is not a member of a national or state legislature. She fails part two as she is clearly not a major political figure who has received press coverage and as for part three of that criteria where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"? I can't find it and it's up to you to produce such references if they exist not up to us to prove negatives. What is your argument for keep? That you dislike what we have pointed out? WP:ILIKEIT is not a sufficient argument. Valenciano (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Policies have been cited, but for your benefit I'll address them one by one. "1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices." City clerk fails point one of WP:POLITICIAN. It is a local, not a state or national office. "2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Not only has there not been significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, there hasn't been much of any coverage to meet WP:GNG, let alone WP:POLITICIAN. "3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Like I said. Coverage fails to meet WP:GNG. I actually cited a policy. You accused me of bias and then failed to cite a policy that the article or subject met. DarkAudit (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*'Keep - Looks like another personal notice for deletion. We as admins must not make these personal assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigfish23 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Blocked indef as a sock of a blocked user, per checkuser. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above user is not an admin. Just a note. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above above user is not only not an admin (on their first day? C'mon, man!), but is under investigation for misconduct at WP:ANI#Socks and meats. DarkAudit (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it fails relevant notability policies. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources, fails WP:BIO & WP:POLITICIAN.--JayJasper (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, DarkAudit. —Hahc 21 15:37, 23 June 2012 (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.