Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Bargar

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Bargar[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician. No in depth coverage in multiple secondary sources as required by WP:BLP. There is a New York Times story about her close defeat in an election in 1992, with almost no information on her. There is also a story from this year about her nomination to run in another election, this time with some good biographical info, but only from her local paper. Borock (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete; she may be marginally notable for her perennial candidate status (which is why I decided to go ahead and put it up, otherwise I wouldn't have) but that's about it. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Bargar was Majority Leader of a New York county legislature; this is surely at least as notable as "members of the main citywide government". Further, she is an "unelected candidate for political office" who has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Articles about her candidacies and her work as a county legislator were published in the Buffalo News, the Albany Times-Union, Buffalo Business First, the Evening Observer, and the Jamestown Post Journal. Some of the articles are solely about Bargar and her candidacies. Even "marginally notable" is still notable. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is not notable enough to have her own article. Basically just local coverage. She did not win in the recent election...just running for a notable office does not make the person notable. The Eskimo (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic local official and failed candidate who doesn't meet general notability standards (coverage is of the race, not of subject in and of herself). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I personally think that the standards in WP:POLITICIAN set the bar for inclusion too low, there is no doubt that the subject currently meets those standards: she held a notable public office in the past which is enough in itself. As the policy is currently written, this article qualifies for inclusion. Doc Tropics 19:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, which office? County legislatures are not an automatic pass of WP:POLITICIAN. Ray^Talk 02:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the politician guidelines: "such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." The New York Times and Business First don't usually cover Chautauqua County, so the fact they felt her notable enough to cover her at least establishes a case for qualifying under the GNG. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO. I do not think the coverage is significant or in-depth enough on the subject for GNG, and the subject has never held an office (despite repeated candidacies) qualifying for automatic notability under WP:POLITICIAN. Ray^Talk 19:44, 19 November 2010 (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.