Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia K. Robertson

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 speedily deleted as a copyright violation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia K. Robertson[edit]

Contested prod. No notability beyond major party candidate for public office; ample precedent and WP:BIO show that that's not sufficient notability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A candidate for office can also be notable by virtue of non-political accomplishments. In this case, the accomplishments listed don't seem to be enough to prove notability, but perhaps further research will turn up evidence that her volunteer or paid work has made her notable. --Eastmain (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unelected politician with no other indications of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unelected candidate. Does not meet basic notability requirements for WP:BIO. Reads like advert/resume and likely posted to WP for (self)promotional purposes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For all the above notability reasons. I'd be for speedy delete, as its contents are cut and pasted from the candidate's website, including the photo, which has no copyright tag: patforbanffcochrane.ca/ Also, the user building the article has vandalized the subject's opponents' listings on Wikipedia, and has been entirely unresponsive to warnings. -- Yamara ✉ 02:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that its contents were a copyvio of the website. I'll tag as a speedy right away. Good catch. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2008 (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.