Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Caughey


 * 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 no consensus. W.marsh 20:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Christine Caughey

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete *This article should be deleted because Christine Caughey was not re-elected back onto the council, and is now a private citizen — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlySam (talk • contribs)
 * Keep *This article must not be deleted as it holds an important record of someone who is a well known and influential figure in Auckland politics. This is regardless of whether or not she holds public office at the current time or not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.36 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree. No point in having an article about someone who is no longer a politician and whose party is gone. Barzini 00:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep She still retains notability. &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  01:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see how she satisfied WP:BIO when she was a member of the council. Clarityfiend 02:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is permanent, but she never had it. --Dhartung | Talk 02:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions.   — gadfium  03:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been the subject of edit wars in the past, but has been trimmed to a stub recently. I've restored much of the content, and would suggest those who have already commented in this AfD might like to look at the article again if they didn't examine its history earlier. In particular, Caughey was awarded the title of Aucklander of the Year in 2004 by Metro Magazine, which is a fairly well known Auckland City magazine. I think that's enough to establish notability.- gadfium 04:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep probably notable but not adequately sourced to show this. JJL 14:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO Pilotbob 02:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly does meet WP:BIO. Let's see: text contains information about notability - check; WP:LIVING - check; published non-trivial independent secondary sources - check. Please explain how this doesn't meet WP:BIO. --Dom 12:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Notability is not lost when you are no longer in office.  Vegaswikian 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being a local politician is not notable in itself. All sources provided are what would be expected of, and show that this person was, a local politician. Nuttah68 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep city councillors in major cities are notable, and Auckland certainly counts. 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above as Auckland is a major city and city politicians in large cities are notable. Thus it satisfies enough WP:BIO JForget 23:26, 25 October 2007 (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.