Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Garvey (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 SPEEDY KEEP. A bad faith renomination by a possible sock puppet account with trollish tendencies. Jehochman Talk 17:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Kate Garvey
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hi yes. The closer of the first AFD kindly invited anyone that disagreed with the "no consensus" close to raise this issue again. Therefore I am raising it. The main issue on which we should concentrate, that needs consensus, is whether Garvey has received significant coverage in the sources cited, or just mere trivial or passing mention. Let's not worry too much about BLP1E or whether she's Jimmy's wife, but just lets concentrate on the one unresolved issue at bar. I say that the sources are mere "passing mention" type coverage, rather than significant coverage. Therefore, the article fails WP:GNG. Ann Bardrach (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Didn't we just have this discussion? Only just two days ago? Two days is not enough time to re-open the exact same discussion. Let's wait a bit before re-opening this same discussion.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: Have you read WP:SOCK? Alternate accounts should not be used for deletion discussions. By the way, whose sock are you, anyway? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * These issues need to be resolved. Better to do it now rather than later.  Why wait? Ann Bardrach (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are any issues, then they will not be solved by repeated AfDing until you get your way.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As the closer of the first Afd, I feel it is inappropriate to renominate at this point. A merger discussion would make more sense to me. (Speedy Keep) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep two days not long enough and the fact she was an assistant or whatever to a high ranking politician makes her wiki notable. That should be the end of the story. Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same rationale I stated in last discussion.  No new points have been raised to consider.TCO (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Give it some time, we just saw this circus at AfD. Marginal notability? Perhaps. But would we have an instant second AfD had this been anyone else? Are you seeing the POINT? Carrite (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Quack quack, this listing was the third edit by the nominator. The first edit was blatant vandalism of a redirect of Chess.com to fisting. Bad faith nomination. This is a troll. Snow this fucker shut. Carrite (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not independently notable of Jimbo. I, for one, believe that immediate renomination of a no-consensus close is perfectly acceptable, and I can find no policy that suggests otherwise.  Let's set the "it's too soon" question aside and vote on the merits, shall we?  p  b  p  04:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep We don't need to repeat the same AFD over again, just two days later. Don't game the system and keep renominating something until you get the results you want.   D r e a m Focus  09:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, even though I voted deleted in the past discussion (and still think it should be deleted). Although I'd rather this article not exist, this is a very bad-faith nomination. The OP misinterpreted what the closing admin said: he didn't say you could just start another AfD if you wanted to, it was to start a merge discussion. This is something that should be proposed on the article talk page (and which I'd gladly participate in and vote to merge with Jimmy Wales), not by opening another AfD only two days after the last one closed. —  Richard  BB  09:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Opening a new AfD just days after the previous one finished is disruptive. It is like a child throwing a tantrum just because she did not get her way. Are we just going to have AfD after AfD until the proposer gets their way one this. Keep per rational used on the previous discussion.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Use normal editing to improve the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I speedily closed this already, to spare us further time-wasting, but User:GiantSnowman reverted this close.  He seems to be upset about the reference made to his footballer stubs such as Adam Mitchell (footballer born 1994).  That person "...won a call-up to the first team for the final game of the 2012-13 season, appearing as a late substitute against Spurs."  It's quite laughable that someone who just appeared briefly in one event is held to be more notable than our illustrious subject here.  There's no case for deleting this page on such subjective grounds. Warden (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all Warden, I fully accept that Garvey is considered notable. I simply reverted your extremely poor NAC close. GiantSnowman 12:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In the previous discussion, User:GiantSnowman stated, "...this person fails WP:GNG...". Warden (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and? There was no consensus to delete, it apppears she's notable, so what? GiantSnowman 12:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Just because an AFD closes as no consensus does't mean it's wise (or even acceptable) to nominate it again after literally a couple of days. If the article isn't improved in several months, renom it then. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. We just had an AFD on this! Seriously? Moncrief (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Waiting a few months would not have hurt. Anyway, I repeat myself from the previous AfD: Subject passes WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, not a WP:BLP1E nor WP-navel gazing (she was notable before marrying Jimbo, as correctly pointed in the previous discussion), article creator intent is irrelevant.-- cyclopia  speak!  15:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - And possibly a reprimand for Ann Bardrach for being a little pointy. NickCT (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * speedy keep bad faith nomination. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep WP:POINTy nom by SPA sock puppet. CallawayRox (talk) 17:35, 8 July 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.