Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Christine Hogarth

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Even split between delete and keep (discounting the creator's duplicate "keep"), with reasonable arguments on both sides. No consensus to delete at this time. No prejudice against re-nomination after a reasonable wait (at least a few weeks, but don't take that as set in stone). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Christine Hogarth

 *  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  14:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 *  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  14:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

obvious campaign advertisement--see discussion at ANI  DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. After rewriting the draft in response to both the AN/I that brought to my attention a new editor having problems writing in a suitable manner, and the subsequent second speedy deletion nomination, which cited as purely promotional the manner in which the now draftified article was written, I am not hopeful that enough third-party coverage can be found to establish Hogarth's notability, unless she is elected. As I have noted on the creator's talk page, there appears to be very little biographical information available. (I've since found her university and some chronology on her LinkedIn, but I don't like to use those to reference biographies, and it's obviously useless for notability.) However, I've rewritten it drastically, so I vouch for its no longer being promotional. In draft space, it's no-indexed. So I can't see any harm to Wikipedia in keeping the draft in case she does become demonstrably notable, and we have to trust the AfC reviewers to judge the suitability of drafts; that's what draft space and AfC are for. Put another way: the description in teh nomination statement nolonger applies and I see no other valid reason for deletion. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Yngvadottir Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I continue to totally disagree with the idea that WP is a place for campaigning for political office. And I continue to think that writing an article about someone with no particular notability at the time they are running for office is an advertisement.
 * As for trusting the RfC viewers, one of the purposes of MfD is to provide second looks at the reviewing,just as AfD does for NPP. No one editor is can be "trusted" to be always right. myself included.  If more people were to also check reviewed articles, and we'd have  higher standard because the community would see more of them to evaluate.  DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep it does seem unlikely that this is going to become a mainspace article unless the stars in the crystal ball align, but not so unlikely that it need be rushed to deletion. Similarly, versions now exist that are not so spammy as to qualify for G11. VQuakr (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I am optimistic that it will have more RS content soon. Magicmondays (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Yngvadottir and Ritchie. (I know that sounds a bit recursive, because here R is per Y, but my "per Ritchie" is really per his reasons to restore as draft, sans copyvio) -- Begoon 09:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST, this person doesn't satisfy the criteria for inclusion for politicians, and is never going to satisfy them until she wins office, and as with most of our drafts that fail their respective SNGs: there is no possible way that this will ever be eligible for mainspace before it is G13'd, because the election isn't likely to happen before the summer. There is no reason to wait for G13 on this, and "we scared off the newbie" is not a reason to keep intentional spam. Additionally, despite what is claimed, there are two other ways to delete spam other than G11, and that can be done without meeting the CSD criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete--Echo whatever Tony uttered.No point in providing false hopes.We are not so short on editors that we have to take folks whose sole intention is to carve out some electoral promotion for his/her client a subject, on our journey. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 09:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Client?" I think you may be alluding to "facts not in evidence" here. No problem with your 'delete' opinion, but let's not get carried away, eh? -- Begoon 10:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm..:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 10:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  14:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious election spam. Fails WP:POLITICIAN for starters. Has all the hallmarks of a comissioned work - probably created by her campaign management. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep,Kudpung กุดผึ้ง is making false accusations against me, and it pisses me off. Apologise now! Magicmondays (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with DGG and TonyBallioni. If ever elected, then it's time to create an article. It's not in project scope to have drafts of every possible political candidate out there. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you are aware she already is a candidate representing 1 of the 2 largest political parties. She is not a possible political candidate out there, a definition which seems unnecessarily dismissive as well as inaccurate. Magicmondays (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, per VQuakr, I see no reason to delete a draft that may prove useful in the future. UltraMagnusspeak 01:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It will be deleted by G13 before she becomes notable. There is no reason to hold that process up, especially given the promotional concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:23, 28 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.