Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Gay


 * 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 nomination was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Carol Gay
Yet Another US Congressional candidate, otherwise unremarkable. A candidate, I stress, not an actual politician. Did some professional political organizer's trade magazine put out an article recently about using Wikipedia for campaigns, or what? Calton | Talk 06:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete She used to be a union rep, and now she's running for congress. Neither makes her notable. Come back if elected. Wikipedia is not a voters guide. Fan-1967 06:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fan-1967. --Icarus 06:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete yup, win or go home, per Fan-1967 above, sorry -- MrDolomite 06:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, peddle your wares at Campaigns Wikia. HumbleGod 07:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per my previous comments in other AfDs. I still feel that major party nominees (not every primary candidate, though) for national legislatures merit inclusion.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 13:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Just another candidate. Major party Congressional candidates are not notable merely on the basis of being the nominee. Wikipedia is not here to give them free ad space. --DarkAudit 14:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a campaign platform -- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 17:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:BIO. Come back if you win. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Candidates and elections proposed policy - election article first, non-stubby individual articles thereafter. --DaveG12345 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - If we impose this criteria on this article, we will then have to, in fairness, delete a very large number of other articles of major party Congressional candidates that do not meet this criteria. (100 articles?  200 articles?  I do not know how many of them have "minimal" resumes.  We, theoretically, could have 468 article deletion debates.)  It would be best to have articles for all the major party Congressional candidates (even if they are only stubs).  Besides, once in a great while something unexpected happens and one of these little known candidates actualy wins.  Just like a pro-life activist/sporting goods businessman did back in 1980..Congressman Chris Smith (Carol Gay's opponent).  72.82.175.4 04:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ...we will then have to...delete a very large number of other articles of major party Congressional candidates that do not meet this criteria. Good. Have any in mind? Click here: you bring the kindling and I'll bring the matches. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides, once in a great while something unexpected happens and one of these little known candidates actualy wins. Yep: and that's when they qualify for an article. Before? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Agree with the opinion above, this is a major party candidate for congress. If you delete this one, its only right to delete all the "candidates." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.118.133 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 10 July 2006.
 * Good. Have any in mind? Click here: you bring the kindling and I'll bring the matches. Or were you under the impression that that was some sort of argument against? --Calton | Talk 00:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: some clarity of language might improve the discussion. She is the Democratic Party nominee for the November 2006 general election for a seat in the House of Representatives.   Using the term candidate makes it seem like she could be be someone competing against a bunch of others to win a primary, which is not the case. John Broughton 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, pointless word games: tinker with the language a bit and you can suddenly change the facts. But whether she's a nominee, a candidate, a favorite son, a dark horse, a lame duck, a floor cleaner or a dessert topping, the fact remains that, when you strip out the fact she's running in a election, she fails the basic encyclopedic notability test. What has she done -- aside from becoming a nominee -- that merits her being the subject of an encyclopedia article? Which is what counts, since this isn't Congresspedia or Who's Who in New Jersey Elections. --Calton | Talk 00:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Youngamerican. &mdash;chair lunch dinner&trade; talk 04:27, 11 July 2006 (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.