Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie K. Fattman

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 Worcester County, Massachusetts. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie K. Fattman

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Minor politician lacking non-trivial references. Her husband's notability is not inherited. The article was CSD'd, but the CSD was incorrectly removed. reddogsix (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who removed the CSD I was unaware of the specific notability guideline in this case, but I might suggest that a merge with Worcester County, Massachusetts might be more beneficial(and still convey the information) than just deletion. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I oppose the merge, why would we want to clutter up the Worcester County, Massachusetts article with a very minor official that may be replaced at the next election. reddogsix (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Because it is information about a county official and someone reading about the county might be interested to know it. Further, every elected official can potentially be replaced at the next election so I'm not sure how that's relevant. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Given that there's not really anything here and that she's mentioned at Worcester County, Massachusetts already, I don't see any reason not to redirect it there.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to an appropriate target. The Register of Probate in New England states is equivalent to the chief clerk of Surrogate's court in other states; it is an important post in the legal world, but not one that confers automatic notability. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2015 (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.