Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody Dunn


 * 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 of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 04:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Jody Dunn

 * I'm just finishing the nomination. No vote from me. ~⌈Markaci''⌋ 2005-08-16 T 03:49:52 Z

Strong Delete Keeping this twice failed candidate would set the precedent for all candidates to be entered here. Regardless of the Party, this candidate has no valid status here, unless they are exceptional examples - such as former leaders of Parties or notable national or international figures. The English Wiki would double in size with half-page election addresses if this kind of thing is not stopped. Strong Delete dok 14:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC) This does not satisfy the criterion for notability; her primary distinction is as an unsuccessful election candidate Matthew Platts 16:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of PPCs. Timrollpickering 17:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this one. Byelection candidates attract much more attention than general election ones. She was also notable for her campaign blog and gaffe about "drunk, flanked by an angry dog, or undressed". And for being the victim of the purple powder incident although that's not in the article at the moment. David | Talk 09:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely better known than the average college professor. This is not true of all Parliamentary candidates, even in by-elections, but is the case with the more high-profile candiates. The Land 11:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsuccessful candidate unless evidence of further notability is provided. Capitalistroadster 06:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as an exception. Arguably better known than many MPs. the wub  "?/!"  10:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. She seems notable. Nandesuka 12:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep major party nominees for national legislatures. Meelar (talk) 14:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, borderline; the rest of the PPCs up for deletion are probably deletable, but this woman did achieve national media coverage (and brief notoriety). Shimgray 16:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, losing is losing, but this one did at least make the news, if only because of the nature of the contest. -Splash 21:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems legit. Trollderella 01:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Week keep due to the ferocity of the campaign. Secretlondon 04:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unlike the vast majority of PPCs, she is probably notable. By-election candidates get national attention, and she got more due to the controversy mentioned in the article and for raising the LibDem vote by such a margin. I also seem to remember her appearing as a panellist on Question Time at one point, and they don't just pick any old PPC. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 14:25, 18 August 2005 (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.