Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annamie Paul


 * 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 keep. We normally redirect candidates known only for their candidacy, but the (weak-ish) consensus here is that she's notable for her other work.  Sandstein  07:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Annamie Paul

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate for the leadership of a political party. As always, this is not valid grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- a person has to win a notable political office, not just run for one, to become notable as a politician, and absent that they qualify for an article only if they can demonstrate preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy. And no, the historic firsts that she will represent if she wins in the end don't already make her special today, either -- because if she loses, then she doesn't still keep that historical significance anymore, and the next one who comes after her will be able to make the exact same claim again. But this article does not demonstrate that she would have gotten an article for any other reason, and is referenced to a mix of routine coverage of the campaign itself (which is not notability-clinching coverage in and of itself, because every candidate can always show some of that) and primary sources (pieces of her own writing about other things, raw tables of election results, the self-published websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with, etc.) that are not support for notability at all. As usual, no prejudice against recreation after the leadership convention if she wins -- but nothing here is valid grounds for her to already have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - This interpretation of NPOL prevents us from improving the encyclopedia, so it should be ignored. Furthermore, SNGs don't override the GNG. Paul sails over the GNG, and held a number of positions before her candidacy. She was a human rights lawyer, liaison to the EU, and the Green Party's appointed foreign policy critic. There's plenty of RS info on her life and background so that the article isn't just a campaign summary. I'll also add that in the current political climate, deleting this article could look really, really, really bad for Wikipedia and we should consider that as well. &minus;&minus;&minus; Cactus Jack 🌵 21:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, any job she held before running for the leadership of a political party makes her notable enough for a Wikipedia article only if she can be shown to have gotten reliable source coverage in those contexts at the time. If you have to use her own employer's self-published content about itself to support the fact that she held any given job, because third party media coverage about her work in that job is non-existent, then that job does not count as a notability claim at all — and a past job is also not a notability maker just because you source it to brief mentions of it as career background within coverage that exists in the context of the campaign, if you can't show any evidence of older coverage that existed while she was holding the specific job in question.
 * But the very few sources here that are real media are all covering her specifically in the context of being a candidate for the leadership of a party she is not yet the leader of. But such coverage does not count as GNG-making coverage for a political candidate that would exempt her from having to pass NPOL in and of itself — because every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, if campaign coverage were all it took then every candidate would always pass GNG, and NPOL itself would never actually apply to anybody at all anymore because everybody in politics would be exempted from it. One of our rules, when it comes to politicians, is that it is not our job to be a repository of campaign brochures for unelected candidates for political office — our job is to restrict ourselves to people who have accomplished something that passes the ten year test for enduring significance, not just to retain articles about every single person whose name happens to be temporarily newsy. That means actual holders of notable offices, not unelected candidates for them.
 * GNG is not, and never has been, just "count up the footnotes and keep anybody who passes an arbitrary number of them". GNG most certainly does take into account the context of what the person is getting covered for, and GNG most certainly does deprecate some contexts (like being a candidate for an office that the person has not yet been elected to) as not notability-clinching contexts. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care and I didn't read this blathering wall of text. Have fun with your crusade to destroy the encyclopedia. &minus;&minus;&minus; Cactus Jack 🌵 22:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Three short paragraphs with section breaks is not a "blathering wall of text", defending Wikipedia's consensus-established rules is not "destroying the encyclopedia", and nobody cares what you do or don't care about. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You post the same blathering wall of text on every politician AfD so there's no point in reading the same thing over and over and over again. In this case the consensus is clearly wrong so IAR applies and it must be ignored. The good news is the tide is turning on this and I'm seeing more and more people in recent months realizing the rank stupidity of your interpretation of NPOL. Peace out. And once again use edit summaries for christ's sake. It's the least you can do as an admin. &minus;&minus;&minus; Cactus Jack 🌵 22:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason I say the same thing on every AFD about a politician is that I'm correct. This has nothing to do with "my interpretation" of NPOL — Wikipedia has an established consensus that this is how NPOL works. If you're really so concerned about the destruction of Wikipedia, then trust me: insisting that Wikipedia keep an article about everybody who was ever a candidate for political office, even if they lost, is one of the best ways to ensure the destruction of Wikipedia. Because if we do it that way, then we're not actually an encyclopedia anymore, but just a pointless repository of outdated campaign brochures for people who aren't actually of any enduring public interest.
 * And at any rate, Wikipedia does not have any rule that the use of edit summaries is mandatory, especially in AFD discussions — because, for one thing, the only edit summary one can actually use when posting a response in a discussion thread is "response", which is not helpful or informative. There are contexts where the use of edit summaries is advisable — but an AFD discussion is not one of them, and there is no rule that use of edit summaries is always mandatory. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm already gonna get blocked for this so I no longer give a shit. Use goddamn edit summaries. Jesus christ. &minus;&minus;&minus; Cactus Jack 🌵 22:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * She was a human rights lawyer, liaison to the EU, and the Green Party's appointed foreign policy critic. Not every lawyer working as part of Canada's diplomatic mission to the EU (there are many) is notable. She has a brief mention of this role in her 2020 political run, minimal significant coverage at the time. And being a lawyer doesn't entitle one to a Wikipedia article either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Keep - article easily meets GNG with references in the article - so all the SNGs it fails has no relevance. This is an atrociously poor nomination, and I suggest the nominator remove it. Nfitz (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC) not speedy with redirect (which surprises me with 2002 in-depth GNG article. Nfitz (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * People do not pass GNG just because they happen to have a small handful of coverage in the context of being a candidate for a political office they have not won. Politicians pass GNG only when they start garnering coverage in the context of holding a notable office, and non-winning candidates pass GNG only if they can show that they had already garnered GNG-worthy coverage in the context of whatever work they were doing before they stood as candidates — but all of the sources here that are supporting her prior work are primary or unreliable ones, while the few media sources exist only in the context of being a candidate.
 * As I said above, GNG does not just count the footnotes and keep anybody who passes an arbitrary number; it does take into account the context of what the person is getting covered for, and it does treat some coverage as not GNG-building if it exists in non-notable contexts (like campaign coverage of an unelected candidate, or "local kid does stuff" human interest coverage in a smalltown hyperlocal, or an article in the real estate section about the subject's taste in interior design when their notability claim has nothing to do with interior design per se.) And as I also said above, if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took to hand a non-winning candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, then every candidate in every election would always get that exemption, and NPOL itself would be meaningless because nobody would ever actually have to pass it at all anymore. Campaign coverage is routinely expected to exist for all political candidates, and just makes her a WP:BLP1E — what hasn't been shown here yet is a reason why her candidacy itself would be of enduring public interest that transcended the question of whether she wins or loses in October. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how GNG works, even if you ignore the quarter-century of media coverage they had before running for the leadership. If there's significant, detailed, independent, in-depth coverage, than they are notable. Even if it's for peeling potatoes. Please study this further, and stop with these unnecessarily disruptive nominations and don't WP:Don't bludgeon the process. Nfitz (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is zero evidence being shown that she has "a quarter-century of media coverage" before running for the leadership — literally the only reliable source in this entire article dated any earlier than 2020 is just a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article about somebody else, which is not support for Annamie Paul's notability because it isn't about her. Outside the context of her leadership run itself, this article is otherwise referenced entirely to unreliable sources, with no evidence whatsoever of any media coverage predating 2020.
 * And I am correct about how GNG works; candidates do not pass GNG, as an exemption from having to pass NPOL, just because they can show the same depth and volume of campaign coverage that every other candidate in every other election can also show. Political candidates do have to show that (a) they are more than just a WP:BLP1E, and (b) their candidacy is of such unique importance that they would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance regardless of whether they win or lose. If candidates were exempted from having to pass NPOL just because they could show that campaign coverage existed, then every candidate would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL, and our entire concept of having any notability standard for politicians at all would be meaningless because nobody would ever have to pass NPOL anymore.
 * Political candidates are one of those groups of people who are especially prone to misusing Wikipedia as a public relations platform to promote themselves and their candidacies advertorially, which is precisely the reason why we have a dedicated SNG for politicians at all. So the test for political candidates is not just "does campaign coverage exist", because no candidate would ever actually fail that — the notability test for political figures requires evidence of enduring importance, not just evidence of temporary newsiness. Bearcat (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How did you miss the media articles back to 1994 in your search WP:BEFORE you nominated? In particular, how is not the over 1,300 word article primarly about her, and her campaign on page E4 of the |June 25, 2002 Toronto Star not good evidence of GNG? Please withdraw this nomination, and please check for notability BEFORE nominating. Nfitz (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good article on her, but it's not sustained coverage - it's an interesting feature article. My WP:BEFORE search did not include the Star, but I found only three articles which quoted her, only passing mentions. Anyways, I'm a delete/redirect, so this shouldn't be withdrawn. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because GNG is not automatically passed by just every possible source that exists — in order to help support her notability, a source has to be covering her in a noteworthy context, which "local newspaper writes human interest piece about a local lawyer getting a fellowship grant from a non-notable organization" isn't. The question of whether a source is useful for verification of a fact and whether it's actually helping to bolster her notability or not are two different things — a source most certainly can be fine for verification of a fact while not actually helping to boost her GNG score at all, if the context of what it's covering her for isn't noteworthy in its own right. For other examples of how this works, you can also use Q&A interviews, in which people are speaking about themselves in the first person, to support purely biographical facts that don't impact on notability — but you can't count them as data points toward whether the person passes GNG or not. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * She seems to be getting coverage and notability, because of the diversity of her candidacy. The 2002 article is literally all about diversity in politics. I'm remain shocked by this nomination. Nfitz (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Paul is notable both her pre-Green Party work (having contributed to Canada's overseas presence and to multiple notable organizations), and for her work in the Green Party. Articles about her have been published across the globe in Jewish circles because the fact that she is running is notable to the global Jewish community in and of itself. Her position on the Green's Shadow Cabinet is notable too. GNG says "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." There is more than enough coverage for that presumption, and in my opinion enough even without that guideline. She is just a notable person.
 * Also, adding in the fact that this is a fully fleshed out article. If it was just a stub, sure, we could talk about there not being enough there, but it isn't. The inclusion of this article is a net positive to Wikipedia and its users. TimeEngineer (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where in this article is there even one reliable source that is about her pre-Green Party work, for the purposes of making her notable for that? The reliable sources are all specifically about her candidacy itself, thus just making her a WP:BLP1E, while her prior work is referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Outside of the wikipedia definition, she is an interesting and ′notable′ person for her pre-Green Party work. That adds to her WP:GNG notability, and as a whole person is enough for wikipedia.
 * Also, to your point that all political candidates get campaign coverage, how many have an article syndicated to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 different reliable newspapers? Only the ones that people are really interested in. TimeEngineer (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a question of whether the person has done "interesting" things or not. Qualifying for a Wikipedia article is not a question of what the person has done, it is a question of how much media attention has or hasn't been given to their achievements. If all a person had to do to get into Wikipedia was to anoint themselves as important, then everybody on the planet would do that and we'd just be a social networking platform — so making a person notable enough for Wikipedia requires their significance to be established by external sources, which do not have a vested interest in promoting the person's career.
 * And as I already explained more than once above, candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se. Literally every candidate in every election always gets some degree of media coverage in that context — but what every candidate doesn't always have is a reason why their candidacy is of enduring significance that will still be of public interest ten years from now. So candidates get Wikipedia articles only if they pass one of three specific tests: (a) after election day if they win, (b) if it's properly established that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of the candidacy, or (c) their candidacy is somehow so much more significant than everybody else's candidacies that it would pass the ten year test as a thing people will still be looking for information about in 2030. The mere existence of a handful of campaign coverage, in the context of an election the person has not won, just makes them a person notable only for a single event, not a topic of permanent importance. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So in order to be notable, they need to have media attention. Ok, thats done in spades. "Every candidate has some media coverage"? Ok, how many of them have syndicated articles in more than 4 countries and two languages? Very few. And was she already notable? Well, she had coverage in several articles about her work on the CCPL, so even that is approaching a 'yes'. TimeEngineer (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * She only has media attention in the context of being a candidate for a political office she has not won, which means you need to reread my second paragraph. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not won — and that still applies even if they have some media coverage in that context, because every candidate in every election always gets some media coverage in that context. A person has to show career coverage in the context of holding a notable office before they become notable as a politician, not just campaign coverage in the context of running for one. Bearcat (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is blatantly not true, as evidenced by the significant in-depth detailed coverage about the subject in the 2002 article in the Toronto Star, which does not mention her decision to seen the leadership of the Green Party 16 years after the article was written. Please withdraw this time-wasting nomination. Nfitz (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is more than enough coverage for that presumption, and in my opinion enough even without that guideline. She is just a notable person. - there is no such thing as 'inherent notability'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Reasonable depth-of-coverage in Haaretz, CBC.ca, National Post and others satisfies WP:GNG; the "weak" part would be due to the WP:NOTNEWS argument; Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of person, which is questionable at this point. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the Green Party election. At this point, she fails WP:BLP1E, since the only reason why she's notable at this point is the fact she's a candidate for party leadership, which I'm not sure is even an automatic WP:NPOL qualifier, and arguably WP:PROMO (while the text isn't overly promotional, it is clear the article has been written to support her candidacy.) Her lasting notability hasn't been proven yet, since if she loses the election, she won't be notable. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Concern about the 'Redirect' vote. According to this (sorry, not sure what the proper shortform would be), Redirect should be used when "the page has no unique and usable content, but information about the topic is found in another article." I don't think that exactly applies here. That said, if the page were to be deleted, I think 'having' a redirect would be a good idea haha TimeEngineer (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We frequently redirect/merge information about candidates who are only notable for being candidates in an election to the page about the election. It just means she's not yet notable enough for a standalone article - we can definitely mention her in the encyclopaedia since she is a candidate. "Merge" may be a more appropriate term here, but redirect is what normally gets used in discussions like these. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification! I appreciate it TimeEngineer (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How is this BLP1E, ? A quick search for her, finds media discussion as early as 1994. The 2002 Toronto Star piece that I just added to the article, is 1,300 words long, in-depth, and detailed - and a great GNG source, in addition to all the recent coverage. Nfitz (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * From my search, she was quoted in an article as a student in 1994. The Star article is fine, but it's a one-off article. It doesn't change the fact she's currently only notable as a candidate. If there were other feature stories out there which discuss her, I'm happy to revisit my vote. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a few articles from that time-frame talking about diversity in politics. What about the Kitchener Record piece from 2003? Relatively brief compared to the excellent Star piece ... but I'm puzzled why several significant articles that count to GNG over almost two decades isn't good enough for this particular person. What is different between this person, and so many others, where much lesser evidence is fine? Nfitz (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Including this article (Dylan Perceval-Maxwell) of a person from the same election, with far less coverage and a significantly lower degree of interesting history: TimeEngineer (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the catch. Read our WP:WAX rule, and then check out that article again to see what just happened. Bearcat (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's a question - can you write an article on her that passes WP:GNG without any election coverage at all? All of the coverage I've seen of her online talks about her as a Green Party leadership contestant, none of that coverage discusses her as someone who is known for any other reason, and my historical search, which is indeed different from yours, only brought up three articles, none of which was significant coverage. I know there's an argument to be made that she's notable as it is for the coverage of her candidacy, but I'm explicitly asking whether we can completely remove the promotional political element from the discussion here (which is always going to exist) to see if she's otherwise notable. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's literally only one line with two short sentences, and only one new reference in the article about her candidacy for the leadership. The 2002 Toronto Star reference alone provides enough information for an article, in my opinion. Nfitz (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't create standalone articles based off one single feature article, that's not how notability works. She is only notable because she is running for the leadership. It's disingenuous to say there's only one reference in the article about her leadership quest, since almost all of the references are to "meet the person running for the Greens leadership." SportingFlyer  T · C  17:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't ... and we didn't. There's some other stuff, but not quite enough. But there's lots of recent national coverage, which is not surprising running for the leadership of a prominent federal party. That leadership run would meet GNG, except that it violates BLP1E. I'm not saying that the 2002 article makes the article a keep. I'm saying the sum of GNG coverage makes the article keep, and because of the 2002 coverage (and other decaades-old coverage, BLP1E doesn't apply. Nfitz (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * at this point I believe that we can. After digging into the references from CCPL and BIPPHUB (including in Catalan and Spanish), the article now focuses more on Paul's civic engagement work. The information about her electoral history and future could be removed an still leave an interesting notable article. That being said, I still believe that the coverage of her candidacy is more than other, similar candidates would/do receive because of the interest it has generated. TimeEngineer (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the article's now source bombed and it hasn't helped with WP:GNG at all. The civic engagement work is full of sources that don't even mention her. The acknowledgement she is not otherwise notable means she shouldn't have a standalone article, at least for now, as there's nothing at all demonstrating her candidacy has any lasting coverage. We need to call this article what it is: campaign spam. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, one of the outcomes of the AfD process is that the concerns of the reviewers are addressed and the article is improved. On wikipedia, everything is supposed to be attributed to a source. I tried to do that, not 'source bomb'. I hope that that particular issue will be fixed by a more experienced editor that myself.
 * Also, I take issue with your allegation that these edits and this article are being done to spam Wikipedia and help a campaign. TimeEngineer (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Wikipedia isn't meant to be logically consistent. You may have a candidate running for office that isn't notable, then another that is simply by virtue of their race, but the press might've given more notice to the 2nd, and it may indeed be significant, and hence deserves an article. Ultimately, it isn't correct to say "everyone running for office shouldn't have a wiki article", specific circumstances go into each one. There's a discussion on the intersection between GNG and NPOL currently ongoing at WT:N. In my view, and as generally applied, both are not required, although they help determine a rise to notability. However, we do often apply different interpretations of policy to different areas. To quote Cullen from the village pump discussion on the matter: These editors have done outstanding work helping keep campaign brochures masquerading as encyclopedia articles off of Wikipedia., and, to paraphrase slightly, [The vast majority] are not truly notable because their coverage is routine, mostly local, run of the mill, and predictable. If NPOL was gutted, there would be a dramatic increase in promotional biographies written by COI editors, and that would be a terrible burden on our volunteers who struggle to keep promotionalism out of the encyclopedia. A fine balance has to be kept, here.
 * This is a comment rather than a keep because my comment applies generally to articles of this kind - whether this candidate meets GNG well enough isn't something I've fully evaluated yet, so I'll update this when I have. At this stage I feel like there are non-notability reasons for the !votes above, and I do see the case for the nominator bringing this to AfD. "Speedy keep" criteria is certainly not met. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - User:CactusJack asserts that the interpretation of political notability taken by User:Bearcat prevents improvement of the encyclopedia and so should be ignored. It is not clear what interpretation is meant.  The political notability guideline is unambiguous, and has been understood and agreed on for years.  Political notability states that holders (not candidates) for certain offices are ipso facto notable, and that anyone else must satisfy general notability.  If CactusJack and Bearcat are disagreeing about GNG, that is all right.  But if they are disagreeing about political notability, one of them is misreading it, either through confusion, or intentionally.  Maybe CactusJack means that general notability should be applied expansively.  But claiming that political notability should be applied expansively is reading it in a language other than English.  Who is saying what about political notability?  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Speedy Keep is more often misquoted, sometimes corruptly, than correctly quoted. It is only meant to apply to certain nonsensical nominations, and this is not one of them.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy was withdrawn when it became apparent that snow wasn't in the forecast. Nfitz (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - This AFD raises legitimate issues of applying general notability. But there are arguments being used that are handwaves at best and appear to be deeply confused.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Whilst I have no opinion on the notability either way, yet, I can sympathise with this comment. This AfD has turned into a circus, with pointy deletions, extended arguments amongst above parties and other conduct ending up at ANI. Something tells me this isn't discussion about notability policy. This AfD is too much of a mess by this point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG with significant, indepth sourcing, particularly for her Green Party work. Lots of it is recent, ut it shouldn't be discounted. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 02:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I used to think that I was a moderate deletionist. I am not sure whether my views have changed, or Wikipedia has expanded (which it has), or my interpretation of inclusionism and deletionism has matured, or what.  On the one hand, political notability is a clear ipso facto rule, and she is not politically notable.  On the other hand, the application of general notability to political candidates is as difficult as the application of general notability to any biography, which is difficult.  There are two extremes that we should avoid with regard to applying general notability to political candidates.  The first is to deny any general notability for political candidates, and only let them in if they satisfy another special notability guideline.  The other extreme to avoid is to make it too easy for candidates to pass general notability based on their campaign publicity.  The basic question is, in my opinion, one of when do we allow someone to be notable by being famous for being famous?  It should not be easy to be covered in Wikipedia by being famous for being famous, but a very few celebrities do pass that test (even if they are not known for anything else).  Similarly, it should not be easy to be covered as someone who is famous for being a famous political candidate.  There are only a few people who pass that test.  Annamie Paul is one of them.  Weak Keep.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think this AFD will end up at DRV no matter what the result is. That is, some editor is going to be a jackass (or jennyass) about this AFD.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think this will end up at DRV since consensus seems to be breaking towards a keep. I just think it's unfortunate that we're deciding to rally around biographies that have been clearly created to promote a candidacy, and that it's become disruptive. If this is kept and she loses, we can always take another look at it when it will be less controversial. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Might meet WP:NPOL once elected, but not yet. --bender235 (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Samsmachado (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2020 (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.