Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Wurst


 * 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 of the debate was delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Amanda Wurst
Wikipedia is not a collection of non-notable biographies. This individual fails every component of WP:BIO. She generates almost no Google hits, no news hits, has not contributed in a lasting way to her field and the article will never be more than a stub. Working as a political consultant for successful politicians does not in and of itself make one notable. Kershner 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Candidates for congress are at best only marginally notable. Their campaign managers are not. Fan1967 02:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 08:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Coredesat. The article citation doesn;t even mention the article subject. Kevin 09:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not paper, threshold should be low, info encyclopedic to me. Snugspout 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. She's on her way, but not there yet.  It is too early in her career, and she hasn't done anything striking yet. Ted 14:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, subject does not meet the WP:BIO criteria.--Isotope23 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:Bio --Auger Martel 16:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep how does covering this harm anything? Wikipedia is not paper. Derex 20:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus covers only encyclopedic content. WP:BIO and WP:NN outline what must be satisfied for a biography to be included. This isn't an issue of harm, it is an issue of what Wikipedia is and is not for. Kershner 21:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. It IS harmful, since this kind of thing accumulatively undermines Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia. Bwithh 16:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom for failure of WP:BIO and general lack of importance. A director of communications for a Congressional nominee is definitely non-notable. -- Kicking222 21:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kicking222. JChap


 * 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.