Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eveleigh Moore-Dutton

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 keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eveleigh Moore-Dutton[edit]

Notability has not been established. Additionally, a tag has been placed on the article since September 2007 asking for the article to be expanded, and it has yielded no effective response in terms of establishing notability nor of tidying up the article or adding any substantive content at all. In the light of this inaction, it seems reasonable to offer it up for deletion. DDStretch (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, city councillors are not inherently notable, and neither are failed political candidates. It doesn't look like there's any other potential claims to notability here, either. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 04:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Google search shows that she has more accomplishments than indicated in the article--clearly notable. JJL (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see the results of these google searches anywhere in this article, which is how I consider it should be evaluated in this case. If you believe the chance of deciding to delete it can be reduced by including material taken from this google search, then shouldn't you or someone else have included the material and resferences (either before or now)? The article can always be re-created with properly argued notability features and references in the future if someone cares to do so if it is deleted as a result of this nomination. DDStretch (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps the current article should just be improved, rather than having to delete it then recreate it in a few weeks or months as the election draws closer. Seivad (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per JJL, also the fact that she is now an European Parliamentary Candidate. She is also a member of one of Chester's most prominent families. Seivad (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can only then repeat what I wrote earlier: if these facts are true, where is the verified information in the article now which states this, given that there has been a template that highlights the need to include more information, etc since September 2007? DDStretch (talk) 10:48, 15 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.