Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy Purvis


 * 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.  Singu larity  03:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Cindy Purvis

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

Fails WP:BIO, Right now she is nothing more than a candidate for the State Senate (not US Senate). Without making any judgement on her viability as a candidate I have generally worked under the guideline that a candidate has to be pretty notable on their own before they get an article. Perhaps she will win and then we can bring this back. Montco (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; The individual clearly exists. The nom brings up "notability", as though that were (a) actually definable, rather than an arbitrary anti-standard, and (b) important. It's not. Verifiable existence is all that matters. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My left pinkie toe exists, I can verify it, let's go make an article about it? --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead. It's perfectly legitimate.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 18:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do all the Earth's 6.6 billion people deserve articles? Biruitorul (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 18:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * delete &mdash; The individual clearly exists but so what?. Verifiable existence alone doesn't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.93.118 (talk)
 * The user above had changed Kurt Weber's vote to delete and added their own commentary. I restored the keep vote and took the IP's contribution as a delete vote, placing it here.  if not appropriate, please delete. Montco (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO. The bio on her campaign Web site does not suggest that she meets any criteria for personal notability. Deor (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above and the fact that ignoring false positives, there's no substantial RS coverage to prove notability TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 18:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There is not any other information or claim of notability at all, and the policy excludes candidates who have not been deleted elected yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume -- I hope -- you meant "elected" and not "deleted" --Calton | Talk 17:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right, we are not voting for the candidate here! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete with no prejudice against recreation if substantial coverage by reliable third party sources can be demonstrated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:N makes things clear, there's simply not enough substantial outside coverage - and that's how we judge notability. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how we judge notability, since it's irrelevant in the first place? Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be your opinion, but it is relevant according to an overwhelming majority and strong consensus among Wikipedians. Not to mention that you, apparently, would like Wikipedia to be the Library of Babel. Your condescending disregard for consensus and POINTy "notability is irrelevant" votes all over AfD may get you into a mess Kurt, I suggest you wise up. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheeser, this language comes very close to violating NPA. I suggest you reword it. DGG (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say, it actually doesn't, but, rather, reflects reality. Note Kmweber's absurd answer above to the question of whether everyone on Earth deserves an article: not just "yes", but the extra absurd and condescending stretch to "...of course". --Calton | Talk 01:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - recreate if she wins, but candidates for sub-national legislatures who aren't otherwise notable don't merit articles. Biruitorul (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing there. --Calton | Talk 17:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO. However, the article should be recreated if she wins! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2008 (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.