Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Mellencamp Smith

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. czar 01:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Mellencamp Smith[edit]

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

Single-sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as fundraising director of a political party. This is a role that could get her an article if she were sourced over WP:GNG for it, but not one that confers an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL just because she exists -- but while she gets namechecked a fair bit in a Google News search (almost entirely in relation to her being let go last fall), she isn't the subject of any significant coverage that I can find. So the coverage that does exist just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not somebody who's cleared GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per BLP1E, though, I'm not entirely sure BLP1E applies as this would presuppose there was even one event and I'm not certain even that standard is met. This seems to be a complete failure of the GNG and (maybe) WP:POLOUTCOMES. Many people have jobs and many people are laid-off from their jobs. Being employed or being unemployed are not indicators of notability, otherwise every living person would be eligible for a WP article. Chetsford (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a low level functionary for the Democratic National Committee is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hastily thrown together text about a subject lacking notability. -The Gnome (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are indeed three or four reliable sources out there that establish that a) she was the DNC head fundraiser and b) she got fired. If this were a CV, it would be one line. Fails GNG.104.163.158.37 (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Absolutely zero indication of meeting WP:GNG. All that seems to be out there is passing mentions that the subject of this article had a job and then lost it. No matter how high-profile the employer may be, that does not impart notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:47, 6 April 2018 (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.