Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernadette Michael

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. postdlf (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette Michael[edit]

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

Perennial candidate does not meet notability requirements. Recommend delete or maybe redirect to some independent candidate page (if there is one). Suttungr (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fringe candidate never elected. Fails Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. PK T(alk) 23:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur. SunCountryGuy 01 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a losing candidate, she fails WP:POLITICIAN and you can't overcome that by losing lots of elections instead of just a couple. Cullen328 (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, the number of elections lost does not make them more notable. Aaaccc (talk), 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a great many articles written about perennial candidates. If it is sourced it should be kept. - Pictureprovince (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Each of these people need to be judged on their own merits. This person doesn't. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list of perennial candidates includes many who were elected to high office at some point in their careers. It includes many who achieved notability in fields other than electoral politics. It includes some who should probably be deleted. Just because some perennial candidates are notable doesn't mean this one is. She isn't. All I can find are a couple of sentences that recommend her as a possible protest vote. That isn't in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources. Sorry, but it isn't. Cullen328 (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2011 (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.