Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah Hendrix


 * 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America1000 00:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Deborah Hendrix

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

nn per Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes orphaned for 2 years Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete she was defeated in a local election this April, and has never held elected office. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Power~enwiki, she never held high enough elected office to pass WP:NPOL --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. While it's not entirely true that she's never held elected office at all (she has apparently been a school board trustee), it is true that she hasn't held any office that would get her an WP:NPOL pass — school board trustees do not get Wikipedia articles just for serving on school boards, candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and Colorado Springs isn't a large enough city that she would have been guaranteed an article even if she had won the city council election. Nothing here constitutes a credible claim of notability, and the referencing isn't even close to the volume it would take to deem her notable anyway because GNG — it's highly dependent on primary sources and blogs, and the few reliable sources are just WP:ROUTINE coverage no different in volume or scope from what any city councillor or school board trustee or non-winning election candidate in any city could always expect to receive. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Very clear fail of WP:NPOL. Currently very poorly sourced and I can't find much better. AusLondonder (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't pass NPOL Chetsford (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't meet WP:NPOL.  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   12:59, 15 May 2017 (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.