Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen L. Robinson


 * 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. Delete, but permit recreation AFTER the primary in May clarification: should she win or otherwise become notable DGG (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * clarification--can be userified, but not kept after that unless there's additional good material.DGG (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Carmen L. Robinson

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An individual who is running in a mayoral primary fails to pass notability guidelines. Sources given are focused on other individuals with only brief, trivial mentions of the subject.  Grsz 11  19:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

She is not "considering" running for mayor. She has announced her candidacy, and will be partcipating in televised debates. This article was already deleted once, and I was told I could recreate it after she announced her candidacy. So that's what I did. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So she's running in a primary. Still not notable. See Mark DeSantis.  Grsz 11  21:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you were not told you could put it in the mainspace simply because she announces. You were explicitly told the exact opposite.  Grsz 11  21:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Restore to userspace with prejudice to not allow re-creation without deletion review and a prohibition of using __ INDEX__ .  The alternative is that the editor will store the code on her personal computer and re-upload it when notability is established enough to pass deletion review, erasing the edit history.  By keeping it in user space not only are the edit history and talk pages preserved but she can ask other editors to review it for notability before requesting a formal deletion review.  In any case, unless she either 1) wins the election, 2) comes in a close second, or 3) does something really notable during the campaign that gets her non-trivial media attention, she will not become notable any time soon.  Only #3 or a strong, long-lasting lead in the polls will allow her to reach notability before the election.  Also, I recommend that if this is userfied, the article should not be allowed to use the __  INDEX__ magic word.  Using __  INDEX__ would make the article spammy and would be grounds for Miscellany for Deletion with extreme prejudice. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Call for speedy-close/userfy - If all contributors to this AfD and User:Fvasconcellos, the only other major editor, consent, we can non-administratively speedy-close this as "restore to userspace." I don't think there is a rule to allow this but if there isn't, WP:IAR would apply.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The AfD's running now, and a non-admin closure would not be appropriate where there's disagreement, as there is in this case.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I made absolutely no contributions to the content of this article—I only userfied it the first time around, and would have no objection to its being "restored to userspace" if the outcome is delete. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct that it would not be good to do an early closure as long as there is an objection. I believe you and possibly the original author are the only objections.  If both of you consent to userfication before another person objects, then it would be okay.  However, I'll understand if you stick to your guns.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll withdraw my objection if and only if the original author does so explicitly. Otherwise, I feel s/he should have the full five days to make his/her case.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  08:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:POLITICIAN being a candidate for political office does not confer notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an election billboard. If she becomes mayor, then she will rate an article. As a matter of mechanics, I don't care if, per davidwr, instead of deletion it is re-userfied until the election. JohnCD (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete — This is a pretty clear case of someone using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. But Wikipedia works the other way round: first you become important, then you get an article.  There are good reasons for that rule — if we didn't have it, the servers would be flooded with promotional material.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct about the order of things, which is why this article got userfied in the first place. As there is a realistic chance this person may become notable in the future, it would be a waste to delete the article and have someone re-upload it sans history when the person is notable.  Userspace pages are not indexed and have almost zero promotional value.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

S Marshall, you said, "This is a pretty clear case of someone using Wikipedia as a promotional tool." You are wrong. I don't know this person. I have never met this person. I just happen to live in the same city, and have read quite a few articles about her, and thought the subject was interesting. I'm not even in the same political party as her. She's a Democrat and I'm a Liberetarian. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are very few reasons why userfication would be denied (only for things like attack pages), but it should be on the original author's request.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  08:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:Grundle2600, where the attempted attempted to undo the move. I left Carmen a message requesting explicit consent to re-userfy here.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  13:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment to closing admin that this be closed with prejudice to recreation, requiring deletion review before being placed in the mainspace again.  Grsz 11  13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with not allowing this in article space without a review. We've been throught his twice, once at PROD, once here. Let's not go through this again.  If she wins, it'll be a no-brainer.  If she leads in the polls after the primary for a significant period of time, she will likely receive enough coverage to pass deletion review.  If she wins the primary but trails or is neck-and-neck in the polls for the main election, she may receive enough significant coverage to be Wiki-notable.  If she does not win the primary, it is unlikely she will reach Wiki-notability unless something else happens that generates significant press coverage.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  13:43, 11 March 2009 (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.