Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Dickinson


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Dickinson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NPOL and GNG. bojo &#124;  talk  21:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unelected candidate, no other indications of being notable. RA 0808  talkcontribs 21:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete . Nothing notable about her. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  RA 0808  talkcontribs 21:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  RA 0808  talkcontribs 21:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Even if she wins, that wouldn't be enough to make her notable (per WP:NPOL) and nothing I've found passes the threshold for WP:GNG. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all of the above are correct. The garmine   (talk)  23:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Exemplo is wrong about one thing, St. Paul MN is a large enough city that if she wins it would be enough to make her notable — but everybody here is correct that the mere fact of being an as yet unelected candidate for mayor is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself. If you cannot show and properly source a strong and credible claim that she was already eligible 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 an article because election per se. So no prejudice against recreation in November if she wins, but nothing here gets her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, if she wins or does something notable that can be documented (other than just running), recreation of the article would then be okay. South Nashua (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable WP:NPOLITICIAN. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   22:36, 28 April 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.