Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemarie Falk


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Rosemarie Falk

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future by-election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- if the person does not already pass a Wikipedia notability criterion for some other reason, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because of the election per se. In addition, this was created in draftspace and then immediately moved into articlespace without a proper AFC review, which is not what draftspace is for. No prejudice against recreation after byelection day if she wins, but nothing here entitles her to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. There isn't enough references for this person to pass notability requirements. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 20:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete –Because of lack of significant coverage to establish notability that can meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. The article is written prematurely as mom said, (perhaps as part of campaing sttategies). Almost all the sources are in banal format A is contesting for this, A will contest for that  If eventually she wins, there will be more coverage of her of course, and will easily meet WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG but in the event she didn't succeed, all this media hype will recede and it will be confined to historical dustbin. Since we don't know what will happen next and Wikipedia doesn't predict the future, the right thing to do is to delete until when substantial coverage is no longer doubtful and extend beyond banal news of A  is contesting for X in Y election –Ammarpad (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable. FUNgus guy (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete unelected canddiates in this level of election are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 27 November 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.