Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirsten Gillibrand


 * 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 delete. – Avi 16:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirsten Gillibrand
This is yet another candidate that Annonymous1000, Jenikap etc have tried to put on here as part of the election campaign. Fails WP:BIO - Delete. BlueValour 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 09:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO, unsuccessful political candidate. Also note that there a few editors (mostly Annonymous1000 Jenikap) have recently created large amounts of democratic related articles. Could this possibly be liberal propaganda on Wikipedia? If so, then the above article also falls under WP:NOT--TBC TaLk?!? 09:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:BIO. Also, "presumptive" candidate? Sounds like crystal-ballism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a candidate for cleanup and de-pov, but major party nominees to national legislatures should be kept.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 23:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * comment. Missed "presumptive." Neutral for now.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete You can't take a resume and a pretty face from Albany and say to people this is a good article (per above). SM247 My Talk  01:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep for now since she is a current congressional candidate in a major party primary . Bring back up for AFD if she loses the primary. KleenupKrew 10:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's WP:NPOV may need some work ("energetic moderate-to-liberal Democrat with broad bi-partisan appeal," is just a start), but as a poorly qualified amateur historian, I personally think this is one of those things that should be kept. If she loses, ten years from now (Web 5.0?) somebody else will have won and the competitor would be a red article because nobody knows who she was... -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 04:48, 4 July 2006 (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.