Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Genovese (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 21:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Gina Genovese
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN politician, one-time mayor of a small town, failed candidate for state senate. Deleted at AfD for non-notability in 2007, promptly recreated out of process and falling between the cracks. All-but-unsourced for several years. Fails the GNG, WP:POLITICIAN.   Ravenswing   10:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I looked her up and a lot of the press about her actually comes after she left elected office and became a community organizer on issues that seem to get a lot of coverage. I would keep it with a banner that asks for more (and newer) references. VanEman (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since, however, this is a BLP, and one that's essentially gone without qualifying sources for nearly a decade, source tagging it just doesn't cut it. We're enjoined to aggressively remove it if reliable sources providing substantial coverage about the subject (as opposed to community issues in which she is involved) are not demonstrated to exist.  If you've found any, could you cite them, please?   Ravenswing   19:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best as this is still questionable for the applicable notability and, even with improvements, I would imagine the article would still be questionable. SwisterTwister   talk  05:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Simply not notable enough unfortunately. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and also WP:GNG as not having significant coverage in reliable sources AusLondonder (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NPOL has been tightened up considerably in the decade since this was first (re)created, but nothing here is substantive enough or reliably sourced enough to satisfy the requirements as they stand today. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, just not notable per our principles. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:44, 7 April 2016 (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.