Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathryn Holloway (4th 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Kathryn Holloway
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as an unelected candidate for office, which is not a claim that satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. All of her other work as an activist is sourced to primary sources — the web pages of organizations she was involved in, Green Party of Canada press releases, her own writing about herself, etc. — rather than reliable ones, with the few legitimately reliable sources constituting only cursory, not substantive, coverage of the unsuccessful candidacies themselves. While this article was kept in an earlier discussion eight years ago (the second discussion being a rapid relist which was speedy kept for not bringing anything new to the table), Wikipedia's standards and practices have evolved significantly since then — primary sourcing and "unelected candidates are notable just for being candidates" may have passed muster in 2005, but by 2014-vintage standards they don't wash anymore. I'd be prepared to withdraw this if good sources about her activist work started showing up to get her past our notability standards for that field of endeavour, but as long as the weight of reliable sourcing is sitting entirely on her forays into electoral politics she can only be judged on whether she passes WP:POLITICIAN or not — and as an unelected candidate, she doesn't. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete & Salt  per nom, No evidence of any notability that I can find, The recreation is also ridiculous so thus should be salted. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  16:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC),
 * There's no "recreation" to speak of — the original article has never, to date, been deleted in the first place. The first discussion (dated 2006) was closed as a keep; the second discussion was speedy-closed because the nominator relisted it too quickly without actually providing any new reasoning; and the third discussion was closed "no consensus". Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well bugger me!, I simply went on the 4 above ... Should've checked the log!, Thanks for noticing my error. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The third nomination attempt turned primarily on using previous survival of nomination as a sign of notability. The problem is this ignored that back in 2006 when this article was first proposed for deletion, our notability rules were different. I believe at one time many more people who were only candidates were considered notable. This is no longer the case, so we have now come to the view that people who are only candidates are not notable for such, and so this article should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, we didn't have WP:GNG before 2007.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2014 (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.