| Revision as of 17:38, 23 March 2008 editCalton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users78,494 edits →Cindy Purvis← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:41, 23 March 2008 edit undoKmweber (talk | contribs)6,865 edits →Cindy Purvis: I don't see what your point isNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| *'''Keep''' — The individual clearly exists. The nom brings up "notability", as though that were (a) actually definable, rather than an arbitrary anti-standard, and (b) important. It's not. Verifiable existence is all that matters. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' — The individual clearly exists. The nom brings up "notability", as though that were (a) actually definable, rather than an arbitrary anti-standard, and (b) important. It's not. Verifiable existence is all that matters. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *:My left pinkie toe exists, I can verify it, let's go make an article about it? --] (]) 12:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC) | *:My left pinkie toe exists, I can verify it, let's go make an article about it? --] (]) 12:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *::Sure, go ahead. It's perfectly legitimate. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 18:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do all the Earth's 6.6 billion people deserve articles? ] (]) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC) | ::Do all the Earth's 6.6 billion people deserve articles? ] (]) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::Yes, of course. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 18:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''delete''' — The individual clearly exists but so what?. Verifiable existence alone doesn't matter. {{unsignedip|87.113.93.118}} | *'''delete''' — The individual clearly exists but so what?. Verifiable existence alone doesn't matter. {{unsignedip|87.113.93.118}} | ||
| **<small> The user above had changed ] vote to delete and added their own commentary. I restored the keep vote and took the IP's contribution as a delete vote, placing it here. if not appropriate, please delete. ] (]) 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC) </small> | **<small> The user above had changed ] vote to delete and added their own commentary. I restored the keep vote and took the IP's contribution as a delete vote, placing it here. if not appropriate, please delete. ] (]) 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC) </small> | ||
Revision as of 18:41, 23 March 2008
Cindy Purvis
- Cindy Purvis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails WP:BIO, Right now she is nothing more than a candidate for the State Senate (not US Senate). Without making any judgement on her viability as a candidate I have generally worked under the guideline that a candidate has to be pretty notable on their own before they get an article. Perhaps she will win and then we can bring this back. Montco (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep — The individual clearly exists. The nom brings up "notability", as though that were (a) actually definable, rather than an arbitrary anti-standard, and (b) important. It's not. Verifiable existence is all that matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- My left pinkie toe exists, I can verify it, let's go make an article about it? --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead. It's perfectly legitimate. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- My left pinkie toe exists, I can verify it, let's go make an article about it? --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do all the Earth's 6.6 billion people deserve articles? Biruitorul (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do all the Earth's 6.6 billion people deserve articles? Biruitorul (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- delete — The individual clearly exists but so what?. Verifiable existence alone doesn't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.93.118 (talk)
- The user above had changed Kurt Weber's vote to delete and added their own commentary. I restored the keep vote and took the IP's contribution as a delete vote, placing it here. if not appropriate, please delete. Montco (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO#Politicians. The bio on her campaign Web site does not suggest that she meets any criteria for personal notability. Deor (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per the above and the fact that ignoring false positives, there's no substantial RS coverage to prove notability TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 18:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete There is not any other information or claim of notability at all, and the policy excludes candidates who have not been deleted yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I assume -- I hope -- you meant "elected" and not "deleted" --Calton | Talk 17:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete with no prejudice against recreation if substantial coverage by reliable third party sources can be demonstrated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:N makes things clear, there's simply not enough substantial outside coverage - and that's how we judge notability. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - recreate if she wins, but candidates for sub-national legislatures who aren't otherwise notable don't merit articles. Biruitorul (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Nothing there. --Calton | Talk 17:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)