Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Brunner (2nd nomination)

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 Speedy Keep Alex Bakharev 01:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Brunner[edit]

I deleted this, and am now submitting this to AfD as per a request on my talk page. This is CAT:CSD related. No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The rationale of the last AfD was that Brunner was non-notable as she was only a candidate. She has now been elected, so that rationale no longer applies. Not every elected official is notable, however, she is going to be the second most powerful official in Ohio (after the Governor) and she is going to be filling the office of Ken Blackwell and changing the election policies he put into place. So she will soon be as notable and perhaps as controversial as he is now. We might as well get started on her article now. — coelacan talk — 03:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Coelacan SoS for a state makes her notable now. Article needs expanding. Marcsin 03:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coelcan. TSO1D 04:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, elected to key statewide office, meets WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 08:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, per coelcan. B e a rly 541 01:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with Coelcan. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:SK says that an article can be speedy kept if: "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves." I think that applies here. Everyone has voted Keep, and Eagle said "No Stance" so it looks to me like we're in SK territory. Can we please Speedy Keep now? — coelacan talk — 23:48, 9 December 2006 (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.

Alex Bakharev 01:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]