Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francine Busby


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *poke* 17:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Francine Busby

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

He doesn't seem like she's notable. In fact, I believe that she is a perennial candidate at this point. Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (whisper)  @ 09:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (talk to me)  @ 09:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Cardiff School District or California's 50th congressional district. Subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources over the course of multiple election events, however the vast majority of the coverage are related to the subject being a perennial candidate (until 2012); this is especially true due to the nature of the 50th (since redistricted to the 52nd) district being considered a swing district by both major parties in the United States. That being said the pertinent things we should look at is WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:LOCAL; the subject as a non-winning candidate of a House of Representatives seat would normally be redirected to the election which the individual ran in. As the subject of this AfD has ran multiple times for a single seat, redistricting to that seat's election results maybe an appropriate target. Another appropriate target would be to the only government council which the subject served on as the subject could be considered locally notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect: She hasn't done anything notable in her lifetime. I will admit that these elections were highly competitive and the RSCC did spend a lot of money. However, not everyone can have a wikipedia page and she isn't notable enough for one.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC) (Note: this comment is from the nominator. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC))
 * Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources seems to exist: . Being a perennial candidate is irrelevant. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I normally don't favor articles on unsuccessful candidates, but she is higher profile in this county than many elected officeholders, and has gotten national press. As shown by the links found by Arms &amp; Hearts, her campaigns received national attention, particularly the 2006 special election for the open seat left by Duke Cunningham; this link shows her being discussed by the national parties as some kind of harbinger of national trends. Here's another example, which is already cited in the article; not many unsuccessful candidates get written up by U.S. News & World Report! She fails WP:POLITICIAN, but she passes WP:N based on significant coverage by multiple national-level reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have added half-a-dozen additional references to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  07:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2013 (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.