Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldie Ghamari

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie Ghamari[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability, WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. Not even a condidate yet. No coverage I could find. Jbh (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seeking party nomination to run in upcoming 42nd Canadian federal election without any other claim for notability supported by reliable sources is insufficient demonstration for Notability for Politicians. If successfully elected in October, then would merit a biography due to being a Member of Parliament. Expect similar articles as election campaigns ramp up. Canuckle (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a candidate for a nomination is not notable enough for an article unless the person is notable to begin with, and there is nothing in article to support this. Even if she wins the nomination, she's still unlikely to pass notability guidelines, so wait until she's actually elected MP before writing the article. The article reads more like a promo than an encyclopedia article to begin with. Cmr08 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 7 April 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.