Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary Clancy

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A failed election candidate in the 2006 South Australian election. No other notability, sitting on a local council is not sufficient, in Australia, the local council is only responsible for garbage collection, gardening services. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep because being a public candidate in a public election gives this person notability, there is press about this, and a historical record of the election and of the candidates, this is something that is valuable to keep, even if it is only a stub, and who knows, maybe the person gets back in politics later Pernambuco 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I could go to the Australian Electoral Commission, pay $200 and become a Wiki bio? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - At this rate my chances of having my own article are increasing by the day. Orderinchaos78 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wait and see what happens  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete WP:N Wikipidia is not a cyrstal ball, If they become notable then they will be. Jeepday 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom MiracleMat 05:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article asserts that she was a former mayor of a town called Brighton. Given how many there are, and that the article links to an unrelated Brighton, would this establish sufficient notability? Resolute 06:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - being a mayor of a suburban council of 60,000 people isn't really notable - City of Brighton - as in Australia, the local government only does garbage collection, maintenance of parks, libraries, parking fees and not stuff like education or health or infrastructure. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmmmm, Clint Eastwood is a mayor, and he's notable, but that doesn't make all mayors notable... Pete.Hurd 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete another NN failed candidate. Pete.Hurd 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the electoral district article. This is one way to improve the Electoral District articles, which, apart from this sort of thing, will never be more than stubs describing who is the member and where the electorate is. JROBBO 10:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep It seems to be well established elsewhere that major party candidates in a election for the legislative body are notable whether they win or lose. The doubts come in when the candidate is not from a major party. In any context I would regard getting 40% of the vote as substantial & notable--at 5% or so it might be different. Some of the objections seem to be based on speculation about subsequent career. Perhaps none of them are relevant to the proper concerns of this AfD. DGG 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#People notes that the precedents are that "Candidates for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability". Pete.Hurd 15:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Losing candidate who stood not for the national legislative body but for a state body? Not notable. Hobson 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete every town has a mayor, every school has a principal, they don't all need articles.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 06:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable failed candidate. Lankiveil 02:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep per first reason listed on this debate. Mathmo ^Talk 16:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - there is definite precedent for candidates with no other claim on notability not having articles. Hell, if such a precedent didn't exist, I'd have my own article. :) Orderinchaos78 18:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient claim to notability. Caknuck 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Peta 02:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 10:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sufficient news coverage... Addhoc 10:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The 2006 election article devotes only one line to the race, even though it was "tough" and "key". As that article and Rosemary Clancy stand now, they dont establish notability in my mind. - grubber 16:25, 7 February 2007 (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.