Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cris Ericson

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 -- The consensus is that the person doesnt meet the requires of notability. I did notice the opinions expressed JulesH (talk · contribs) together with a number of sources, these sources are mostly from blogs with two being from www.stateline.org which alone may have established notability but neither of the articles was about the subject, the subject was mentioned only in passing. Gnan garra 14:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cris Ericson[edit]

Both unnotable and subject has expressed desire not to have the article here (she created it and then changed her mind), SqueakBox 17:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To my knowledge the desire of a subject to be included or excluded is notr relevant. The page is encyclopedic as it stands.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was a candidate in '04 in a major election which meets our notability requirements, last I checked. Her website http://crisericson.com now redirects to the Vermont Marijuana Party's MySpace page which is soliciting for voters to get someone on the ballot for governor in '08 and though I don't see a name listed, having it redirected from her site makes me think it's her that they're trying to get into office. Dismas|^(talk) 18:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC
- Comment we have no sources whatesoever for this article, SqueakBox 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Candidates for legislative or state/provincial do not meet our notability requirements. In many countries a notable position (e.g a position in a provincial legislature) may have twenty or more candidates. That could over a ten year period add up to 10,000 people in Canada alone! The winner is notable per WP:BIO but candidates generally aren't. Edited because I can't add. --Charlene 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- auto-biographies are not allowed in Wikipedia ChrisLamb 19:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Based on her campaigns for office, however big a joke that might be Corpx 19:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gaining less than one percent of the vote in a significant regional election is not sufficient for notability as I understand it. Shalom ^Hello 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin please note: User:Crisericson was blocked over a "username concern" that she might be trying to impersonate the subject of this article. It is perfectly clear, looking at her initial edits to this article, that she is the subject of this article. I don't expect her to edit again from this account, but as a formality we should correct the injustice. Shalom ^Hello 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Tony is right, it doesn't matter whether subject wants it or not, but this person is clearly not notable. as mentioned, wp:bio states they have to hold office to be notable, and this person hasn't. also, very unlikely anyone would be doing scholarly research on this candidate; any searches or queries would likely be voters seeking information which is her website's job, not wikipedia's. Barsportsunlimited 22:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly nn. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 23:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed political candidates are not inherently notable. Resolute 03:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject's wishes are irrelevant. There are large numbers of third party sources about this woman, so clearly meets WP:BIO and WP:N. See: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] JulesH 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Dismasn and JulesH. It should also be noted that while autobiographies are discouraged, they are not disallowed.--JayJasper 13:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just misses out on meeting notability requirements. Cedars 02:30, 28 June 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.