Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Campbell (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wendy Campbell
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The previous AFD touched upon some of the significant NPOV and soapbox issues with this article, which have continued to crop up over the last almost 3 years.

The consensus was keep, but this was due to the fact AFD is (quite rightly) not the place to address these issues. Crucially, however, the previous AFD completely failed to address how the subject satisfies the inclusion criteria.

Simply put: she doesn't. Wendy Campbell is not the subject of independent, reliable, verifiable sources, regardless of how objectionable/agreeable her views are. I therefore propose deletion. WilliamH (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sure not much in the way of reliable sources there. Take out the self-published sources and the blog source, and all that's left is the Jerusalem Post author attacking her.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an excellent example of a well written, well referenced article that utterly lacks any significant, reliable secondary sources that could confer notability. The many references give the initial appearance that there is significance, but as was mentioned above, the majority of these refer back to the subject's own websites. The lone article from The Jerusalem Post can't really be construed as significant media coverage of Wendy Campbell. Teleomatic (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There's only the thinnest thread of news coverage, virtually all from a couple months in 2005, per Gnews, at least. J L G 4 1 0 4  04:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * keepThere are a lot of people named Wendy Campbell out there, but it you google news archives with her name and terms like Israel, Holocaust, and anti-Semitism you get articles showing that she is an anti-Semite, a supporter of such Holocaust deniers as Zundel, a small-time activist and all-around loathsome specimen humanity. While it is not clear that she has ever done anything worthwhile, I can see utility in keeping the article up - to make it easy for anyone who looks her up to discover how loathsome some of her political commitments are.  The fact that it has space for articles on relatively obscure people and events who do sometimes appear in the news is one of the things that makes Wikipedia useful.  And she will be in the news again.  With a placard.  Promoting some vile cause like Holocaust denial.Historicist (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: None of that actually explains how she satisfies the inclusion criteria with non-trivial significant coverage. WilliamH (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree. There is no independent non-trivial coverage of her. Refs referring to Campbell are predominantly her and her husband's Marwen Media. There is one passing reference to her in the J Post, and another that refers to her as an Oakland woman holding a sign at a rally -- pretty much the definition of non-notable coverage, if you ask me -- but nothing at all that indicates she is notable among anti-Zionists and/or anti-semites. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2009 (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.