Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Kimme


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Nancy Kimme

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a political staffer, not properly sourced as passing a notability criterion. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for the fact of being chief of staff to an officeholder, unless they can be properly sourced as passing WP:GNG for that -- but of the ten acceptable reliable sources here (the other eight are blogs or primary sources which do not assist notability, and/or unnecessary reduplications of one of the reliable ten), seven of them are covering her in the context of an allegation of criminal impropriety which falls afoul of WP:PERP as she wasn't convicted — while the other three are solely in the context of her being named as a possible candidate for a vacancy but not actually appointed as the successor. But being a candidate for a job she didn't get is not a notability criterion at all, and two of the three sources for that just namecheck her existence while being fundamentally about the person who did get the appointment. All of which means that nothing here constitutes notability: dismissed allegations of impropriety are not in and of themselves a reason why a person would get an article if she didn't already clear any other inclusion criterion independently of that, and there's no evidence that she would pass GNG if that content were stripped. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the article should stay up. The main WP:GNG requirement is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." By this definition, because she has been well covered in a variety of reliable sources, such as Ballotpedia, NBC Chicago, Crain's Chicago Business, The State Journal and the Chicago Sun-Times, which are independent of her, she meets the Notability criteria in my opinion. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ballotpedia is not a reliable or notability-assisting source, but a user-generated source in which every candidate in any election will always get covered because they get to put that coverage there themselves. And we don't just grant an article to every single person who happens to garner three or more source hits: we also pay attention to the context in which that coverage is being given, and discount if it fails certain rules like WP:PERP — a rule under which coverage given in the context of a criminal allegation without conviction does not assist in making a person notable enough for an article if she wasn't already notable enough for an article before the criminal allegation coverage kicked in. So no, to make her notable enough for a Wikipedia article you would have to overpower the criminal-allegation sourcing with a lot more sourcing about her work outside of that allegation than you've shown here. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see any clear case for notability. The article is largely a series of scandals. Nobody cares about her f*#&ing emails, or a birthday party she had in 1999. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 15:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject may be a major behind the scenes player in Illinois politics, but lacking the reliable sources that clearly state what her role is, we do not have enough to have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete TOOSOON and GNG. I see no redirect target. L3X1 (distænt write)  00:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete She does not look very notable. It looks like a biography of a person who is not prominent enough in politics. Plus better sources are needed.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2017 (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.