Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinah Mulholland


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Dinah Mulholland

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page was created within the last few days and is about a prospective candidate in the 2017 General election. The person in question is noted for no reason to justify a wikipedia page Tomdff (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree. Apart from this, no sources found to support GNG/SNG. Lourdes  18:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete unelected candidates are not notable. Wikipedia is not a place to run free campaign adds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Disagree with above as others are now contributing new content to the page and the person is now a GE candidate making it of more interest to electorate. New edits alter this from a campaign ad into genuinely useful background for voters. unsigned comment added by GallantEthel (talk • contribs) 05:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * — GallantEthel (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections — if you cannot show and properly source that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to get a Wikipedia article because election per se. But this makes no credible claim of preexisting notability, and does not cite nearly enough reliable source coverage about her to suggest that we could consider her candidacy more notable than the norm for any reason — every single candidate in any election could always show two pieces of local media coverage and a bunch of primary sources, which is all that's actually been shown here. It is not Wikipedia's job to help aspiring officeholders promote their candidacies to the voters — our job is to maintain articles about the people who do hold office, not everybody who merely runs for one. No prejudice against recreation on or after June 8 if she wins, but nothing here gets her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Article fails to meet notability criteria, as detailed above. I'd love my own Wikipedia page detailing my lost elections, but the guidelines are the guidelines. --Woodgreener (talk) 18:13, 11 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.