Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Elder


 * 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 keep. John254 00:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Suzanne Elder

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Person/politico of strictly local note. Lots of sources, but tangential to the subject, and lost primary. Paddy Simcox (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - has plenty of reliable sources which seems to prove notability. Meets point two of Notability (people). EJF (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete She hasn't held an important office. She's not notable at all.  Nick mallory (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * 'Keep per above. --House of Scandal (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per substantital coverage in reliable third party sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - subject is clearly at least locally notable, and it's a reasonably well-written article that mostly preserves NPOV. Hell, it's better than fancruft. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, fairly obviously I'd have thought - David Gerard (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, for both local significance and the study on abortion. Marc Alexander (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2008 (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.