Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Bounds


 * 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. Secret account 07:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Kathleen Bounds

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, as this person is only a county school board president and has not been widely covered in local media. It appears that this article was created as vanity. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The "Tax controversy" is local news. Location (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep From a purely mechanical reading of WP:BASIC, and, and arguably   are full newspaper articles about the individual that reach WP:GNG.  I don't see this subject meeting the more specific notability guidelines, though, I don't see the awards as reaching ANYBIO 1, or POLITICIAN 1 or 2.  The wording of POLITICIAN 3 suggests that perhaps BASIC might trump, though.  --j⚛e deckertalk 18:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the third source, a 1978 article from the Toledo Blade, refers to the same Kathleen Bounds from South Carolina. But I have my doubts whether a local school board chair whose media coverage is a slow-news-day puff piece and whose awards were at local level meets wikipedia notability. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, subject appears to have received multiple mentions from non-primary reliable sources, however if taken in total, those mentions do not appear to pass significant coverage requirements per WP:GNG. There is the article from the Toledo Blade, but a two paragraph blurb is not something I would consider significant coverage. Therefore, given that the subject does not pass WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN doesn't even come into play.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:42, 21 February 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.