Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Ellquist

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 no consensus. WjBscribe 02:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Ellquist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO. Delete See previous nom. GreenJoe 16:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Co-chair of Arizona Green Party. The nom is AfDing, prodding or speedy tagging a majority of Green Party member articles. Could be a bad faith nom. --Oakshade 16:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I just saw a lot of non-notable entries in the cat. --GreenJoe 16:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Key words are "could be". That kind of single-party deltion effort cannot be ignored. Not uncivil at all. --Oakshade 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's uncivil when you put it in multiple afd's. GreenJoe 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Information of a possible deletion agenda should not be kept hidden from other AfDs. All editors can make up their own minds. --Oakshade 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --GreenJoe 16:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you bringing a straw man into this? I don't see the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:POKEMON arguments being used here. --Oakshade 16:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, regardless of the "agenda" or lack of one on the part of the nominating editor, AfD discussions should focus on arguments about the article and its suitability for this encyclopedia, not how it ended up here for discussion. Sancho 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. An unsuccessful candidate for county attorney is not notable. Her co-chair status of the Arizona Green Party (which according to the article has only has 2 county organizations) is not relevant and it's not clear that this party has any affiliation with the national one (If it is affiliated, it should probably be deleted as not notable; I note that there are no parallel articles Arizona Democratic Party (except for a stub with a logo) or Arizona Republican Party and surely someone in Arizona votes those ways). Carlossuarez46 22:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, her political involvement in itself dosn't make her notable, but I think her political activities do. I did some background research on her, and it seems that she is pretty well-known for her anti-death penalty beliefs. *Cremepuff222* 23:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment quite possibly so, but it's not clear from he article, which just says she had them and campaigned on them. DGG 03:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.