Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Tusz-King

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 redirect to New Brunswick general election, 2010. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Tusz-King

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

Non-notable local politician, organization spokesperson for non-notable organization, ~~failed~~ minor party candidate for provincial office; fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. Orange Mike | Talk 13:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. JohnInDC (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Any information about her involvement with Burnt Church can be added/redirected to that article. Bkissin (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not a wiki expert, so I don't completely understand the formatting on this type of page. Orangemike suggested failed candidate for provincial office. She hasn't failed yet.

I've added some references of her published work as a pharmacist. I've added some references to her current involvement with a newsworthy and important local environmental issue. I'm not adding details of the thousands of people she's helped with her social activist work at the Tatamagouche Centre. The information presented is factual, I've provided references. It's odd that it would be noticed so quickly as a candidate for deletion. If Margaret is deleted because she doesn't have the notability of Jessica Simpson, although her positive effect on the planet may be significantly greater, then I guess that's the way it goes. User:Davidbelliveau —Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, Mr. Belliveau. I'm sure Ms. Tusz-King is a wonderful human being who has accomplished a lot of stuff in her life. However, while she may be a political candidate for MLA, she is not, according to Wikipedia standards, she is not notable enough for this website. As I'm sure you've noticed from the New Brunswick general election, 2010 article, there are a lot of candidates who do not have their own article, however interesting their lives may be. If she wins in Tantramar, then by all means we can add her article again, but until that point, she is not notable enough for this website, unfortunately. Bkissin (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN, candidate who hasn't held office. Above claim that she should be kept because she's more notable than Jessica Simpson (!!) is laughably ridiculous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ The claim wasn't that she was more notable than Jessica Simpson. Jessica is clearly more notable. More useful? Perhaps not. That was the point. As far as having held office, she's currently a Town Councillor, which isn't a high enough office to be notable, but combined with being a candidate for provincial office and being on the front lines in the Tantramar region in the current struggle against hydraulic fracturing for natural gas could have a cumulative notability valueDavidbelliveau (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC) (Striking Davidbelliveau's second keep !vote. – ukexpat (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

- Comment You'd probably benefit by reading the guidelines at WP:Notability, which set out a (reasonably) straightforward and objective standard, which is in essence, that if a subject has received sufficient attention from third party reliable sources, they're notable. If you think she's notable, then pull together as much of that sort of material as you can. Arguing about whether she ought to be deemed notable, in the absence of such coverage, is not likely to get very far. JohnInDC (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. ukexpat (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I always say merge and redirect to the race article, here Tantramar (electoral district). A new section just above the last election, with a paragraph on each candidate, is all that is needed and fits that article quite nicely. Any WP editor who is serious about NPOV can shrink the article to one paragraph and write a new sourced neutral paragraph on each of the other candidates. Shrinkage during merge is key. Build a new article if she wins. JJB 06:58, 24 September 2010 (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.