Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carla Howell (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Carla Howell
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. She has never won an election nor held an office. Most of her article is about her repeated failures to get a tax cut passed. The rationale for keep in first nomination (back in 2005) ranged from no reasons whatsoever to one anonymous claim that "she was a major player in politics" (which is not supported by sources), another claiming that the tax initiative was notable (only for repeated failure), and one that 5000 GHits was good enough for notability (current searches past #10 start to hit her FB and Twitter, a YouTube spoof she did, etc. Obviously hit counts do not equal reliable and independent coverage). She therefore does not meet the local criterion either. MSJapan (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep not as a politician, but as an activist and organizer who has a well-established reputation in Massachusetts. Take a look at Google News and Google Books, both of which show that she's received in-depth coverage for many years.  Many Boston Globe stories (hidden behind pay walls, unfortunately), but the snippets visible indicate that the coverage has been substantial. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, but meets WP:GNG. Although not a major political figure, she appears to receive a fair amount of coverage every two to four years in Massachusetts. In addition to the news and book hits, I found a Glenn Beck interview. Location (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no significant coverage (other than the Boston Globe editorial which talks about the other two candidates being awful as a reason to endorse her) and the other criteria aren't there either: Howell's runs for office were unsuccessful by large margins and the initiatives she helped with failed as well. The mention in the ballot initiative article is enough. Hekerui (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per Location. The subject has received coverage in numerous articles over the past few years as a Libertarian candidate and anti-tax activist. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Location. She is evidently well-publicised in Massachusetts. It's not surprising when fringe candidates for office fail. Occuli (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cullen328 and Location. Meets GNG. --JayJasper (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2010 (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.