Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemma Weedall


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Gemma Weedall

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:BIO. Being an unsuccessful candidate hardly meets notability requirements. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics,  and Australia.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Not great coverage for notability. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Perennial candidate fails WP:NPOL. KidAd  •  SPEAK  01:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Searched databases for subject but found only some minor passing mentions in Green Left Weekly-- far from the epitome of an WP:RS. I couldn't find anything to support WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Could not find any where near sufficient about the subject to support GNG.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete defeated candiates are not default notable, but when you win less than 1% of the vote that is an especially strong sign of not being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one — but the volume and depth of sourcing here is nowhere close to sufficient to make her candidacy markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above, especially GNG. This looks like a blizzard. SPF121188  (tell me!) (contribs) 18:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete for notability issues. Gusfriend (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2022 (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.