Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carly Saeedi


 * 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. A clear consensus that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Carly Saeedi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Third party political candidate with no claim to notability. I'm getting increasingly frustrated at the high amount of Greens candidates getting these promotional articles this election, and they seem to be removing speedy and PROD tags. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete unelected political candidates are almost never notable for running for office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, no claim to notability.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  06:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Easy again. This was created through AfC, maybe we could talk to them about not accepting these kinds of articles. Frickeg (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the above. Fails WP:NPOL. (On this subject of unelected candidates and their notability I fail to see why an unelected Liberal candidate in Jason Falinski was allowed to keep his article. Double standards? We even had the nom here and others arguing in favour of keeping Falinski in exactly the same circumstances) AusLondonder (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Falinski both has a good case for notability in his own right anyway and was guaranteed of election on top of that, making insisting on a fight to delete his article for the sheer point of doing it when you know for a fact you will have to recreate it in a month a waste of everybody's time. Saeedi, while I'm sure an admirable person, is not even remotely close to either of these things: there is no plausible claim to notability other than the candidacy and no chance she will be elected. This is not even a subtle distinction. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Being the chair/president of a couple of political organisations or a staff member of a politician is not a "good case of notability". Furthermore, we are not in the business of predicting elections or arrogantly declaring people "guaranteed of election" or "no chance". WP:NPOV exists. Nothing in life, let alone politics, is guaranteed. AusLondonder (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is determined by sources, and Falinski already had newspaper and book sources going back twenty years even if you specifically ignored the entirety of the media surrounding his candidacy (including references to his life beforehand). There are elected MPs with less sources than he had the day he nominated for preselection. As I said, I wouldn't have created it because people like you will invariably try to pick that fight and it's pointless either way, but insisting on fighting other editors to temporarily show-delete an article for four weeks to make a WP:POINT is a waste of everybody's time. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * SNOW Delete as there's enough consensus here and nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  06:40, 12 June 2016 (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.