Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristen Crowell


 * 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. S warm  we ♥ our hive  07:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Kristen Crowell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clearly a non-notable individual and suspect that the subject is one of the main editors DeleteAllTheThings (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  13:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Many references in article (as of July 17 2015) meet the WP:RS. Plus there are many more possible sources, plus she's been interviewed on NPR, quoted as an authority on Wisconsin and Chicago politics, and heads an influential group in Chicago politics. Meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 20:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm a journalist, so maybe I'm biased, but being quoted in one of my articles doesn't mean anything at all about your notability in an encyclopedia. She looks like just another self-promoting political worker that isn't worth an encyclopedic mention.  Jd 027  (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Illustrious words from the Tribune: 'He said Crowell has not been directly involved in Garcia campaign to unseat Mayor Rahm Emanuel. “She is not on staff and never has been,” Sharp said. “She is really just one of thousands of people in Chicago who are anxious to replace Rahm Emanuel.” '  Jd 027  (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Rebuttal. Clearly this person meets notability criteria, with in-depth coverage here, with her leadership of progressive politics in Wisconsin and Illinois, with her being quoted again and again in respected newspapers such as the NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Chicago SunTimes, NPR. So she's clearly viewed as a political consultant, plus her leadership of We Are Wisconsin, which came close to unseating the governor, and United Working Families, is getting much media attention. At present, there are fourteen (14) solid references (as of July 25 2015), including in-depth treatment as well as numerous articles where her views are quoted in a paragraph or two; the Wikipedia rule is If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability and clearly she satisfies the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "plus her leadership of We Are Wisconsin, which came close to unseating the governor" -- uh, no, no, and OR.  Quis separabit?  15:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Some of the groups she has been linked to, like We Are Wisconsin, may be notable, but no evidence that she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Subject is quoted in a number of cited sources, but far too many are about other topics and not her. Subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet general notability guidelines. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: as non-notable partisan cheerleader political operative. Quis separabit?  15:03, 27 July 2015 (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.