Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pola Buckley


 * 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 no consensus. Before and after relisting, there was no consensus to delete. No side made stronger arguments either. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Pola Buckley

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NPOL. Unelected position does not confer notability. KidAd  talk  03:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus yet whether she passes WP:NPOL and the WP:GNG or not.
 * Keep NPOL states "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office". It does not state that the position must be an elected one. She holds a state-wide office currently. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 05:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Holding statewide office only carries a presumption of notability, not a guarantee. (WP:NPOL). In this case, I couldn't find much about her online, aside from a few news articles about audits she's conducted, but those articles don't provide in-depth coverage about Buckley herself. Edge3 (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The news articles about her audits are precisely why we have a presumption of notability for holders of statewide offices. Still, I did find at least one article that seemingly covered Buckley herself (though behind a paywall). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please look at the last article again, it's not about her. --GRuban (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I copied the wrong link there. That article was supposed to be something else, but I've completely forgotton what it even was since it was a few days ago now. Sorry! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - SNG's don't trump GNG, and there simply isn't enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep She holds statewide office and the article has potential to expand. LeBron4 (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete GNG trumps specific notability guidelines. We need indepdent coverage of the person, not just a government document showing that they hold some office. To me this seems to be a case of a very minor state level office that is not present enough to the public to justify conferring notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG, and this is a very minor office - I don't think "statewide office" means "every office that the state governor or legislature appoints only one of", or there would never be an end to them. The articles about the audits and her appointment are short, and she basically doesn't participate in them besides being named. The "one article that seemingly covered Buckley herself" seems about School Superintendent Mike Buckley. --GRuban (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I gently disagree that state auditors are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2021 (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.