Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanne McCafferty

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. Mz7 (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne McCafferty[edit]

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

This page seems to have been created in relation to her role as a failed political candidate, which doesn't confer notability. Her business roles and her past as a chief of staff for a state government minister are also not notable. Grahame (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get articles just for being candidates in elections that they didn't win — to satisfy WP:NPOL, she has to win the election and thereby hold office, not just run and lose. But there's no supplementary evidence of notability for other reasons being shown here at all — the content about her prior career in business is referenced entirely to primary sources, not reliable ones, and she isn't the subject of the source for being chief of staff to Greg Pearce, but merely has her existence namechecked in an article whose subject is Pearce. That's not a source that assists notability for that position at all — so we're ultimately right back to "notable because she ran for the state legislature and lost", which no, she's not. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty cut and dried. Bearcat says it all above. Frickeg (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I endorse Bearcat's sound reasoning above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:41, 22 August 2017 (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.