Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Hobbs

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. I have considered the sources that JWNoctis put forward. The first one is just a mention of her participating in a protest. The two others are more substantial, but not sufficient to override what is an otherwise clear consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Christina Hobbs

Christina Hobbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to notability besides a political candidacy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep I would say these references cited in article are from reliable independent secondary sources, and albeit individually do not amount to significant coverage, they do demonstrate a degree of notability combined. Thus keep, per WP:BASIC. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 10:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• As always, candidates for office are not eligible for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a compelling claim of preexisting notability for something prior to their candidacy, then they have to win the seat, not just run for it, to earn an article on the basis of the election itself. So I'd be willing to reconsider this if a lot more substance and sourcing could be piled onto her work as a consultant and/or an economist — but the sourcing that's present here now simply doesn't cut it. Of the seven footnotes here, two are just unnecessary reduplications of two of the other five, two are primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, two just confirm her existence while not being about her in the manner necessary to support notability, and the one remaining reference that actually does count toward a WP:GNG claim is covering her specifically in the context of her candidacy. All of which means that this is not the volume or quality of sourcing it takes to support a credible claim of preexisting notability for anything besides the candidacy itself. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after July 2 if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Candidates for political office are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Not American, therefore of no interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.155.208 (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with it, no. You might want to check where the nominator lives, just for starters. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete at best for now, nothing convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Userfy in creator's userspace. If she wins, she's notable; no sense making the creator do the work twice. Montanabw^(talk) 18:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not impossible, but are not likely either. This is definitely not a case of "this person will be elected anyway so why delete in an election campaign". The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2016 (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.