Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathryn Holloway

Kathryn Holloway

Non-notable, unencyclopedic. Nothing in this article establishes why she needs one. Delete Ardenn 18:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable.--Adam ^(talk) 18:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete., WP:NOT soapbox/personal website for personal achievements. I guess I'm just trying to say vanity. Jawz 18:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - "kathryn holloway green" gets many google hits, and WP:BIO has as a criteria a local political figures...tho I agree she never actually seems to have become one, just a potential candidate. --Syrthiss 18:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Like Syrthiss said, she may pass for WP:BIO. However, the "significant press coverage" may be unverifiable; the only media references are from the Boston Business Journal and CBC Television, and neither are accessible, and from Relix Magazine, whose articles are written by a "Katie Holloway." Seems non-notable for now. -Rebelguys2 18:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep After spending considerable time with the article this seems legit.

1. The article is fairly well written (for a AFD)
2. She seems connected to many different things
3. Media in Canada has picked up on her, see netscape.ca ctv.ca theglobeandmail.com
4. A fairly specific google search specific to her dealings reveals 1000+ hits See: "Kate Holloway " OR "Kathryn Holloway" "green party" OR "Toronto Centre" OR "jim harris" OR "Scarborough Rouge River" OR "Engage Technologies" -wikipedia Link and the search does not include her dealings w/ Lavalife or other things
5. Media seems to use the name "Kate" versus Kathryn... (see google search above)
6. avoid Groupthink and assume good faith, please reconsider your votes. —Achille 2006-01-25 19:18Z

• comment None of the arguments you stated justify the keeping of this article. If the subject isn't worthy of encyclopedic value then the subject doesn't deserve to be listed in an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter how well written the article is or how many pretty pictures it has. It also doesn't matter the number of activities a certain person is involved in or if that person had an esporadic appearance in television. What matters is notability and it seems you weren't able to prove that the article's subject had any relevant merit to be covered in an encyclopedia. Regarding the google search tip, if I ran a simple, straight forward google test on my nickname I get more hits than your convoluted google test. Moreover, I can run a google test similar to yours (lots of inclusive logic) to prove that I am connected to the pope. Therefore your google test proves nothing more than that the article's subject is indeed very obscure and irrelevant. Last, your "avoid groupthink" jab at wikipedians shows that not only you know that the article deserves to be deleted but that you are irrationally defending the maintaining of an article which is completely void of encyclopedic merit. I aplaud the efford but unfortunately it is missplaced --Mecanismo | Talk 19:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable and probably vanity --Mecanismo | Talk 20:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Central to the recent scandals in the Canadian Green Party, and a well written article. - SimonP 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep News article at [1], and other keep comments noted above. --Durin 22:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep there seems to be enough notability there. Well written and referenced. Could probably do with a trim. --Salix alba (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep. Monicasdude 02:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jawz. Stifle 09:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Normally in favor of broad inclusion, but not to the point of accommodating lengthy self-promotion. This individual should perhaps get a mention or two in an article on Canada's Green Party or other relevant established topic, but her own extensive page is overkill. JDG 17:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons given above. This is better than an awful lot of bio articles (though improvement is needed). --Rob 05:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Syrthiss and Achille --c3o 00:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep does seem to smack of vanity a bit, but an executive with a green party mentioned in press and with 1000+ google hits probably deserves an article.
• Strong keep. Holloway is influential in Canadian politics, and it's not vanity: she never edits the article herself. -- Marvin147 15:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think she does edit it, as an anonymous user. Ardenn 17:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Anyone could make either claim (she does/does not edit it herself) about anyone, so unless both of you have some evidence, this amounts to personal opinion. However, I'd like to point out that I look upon the practice of attempting to out people's anonymous edits as, rather distasteful. -- 70.28.153.94 15:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Users who violate the three-revert rule are asking for a spanking. Of course whether User:Arden technically did this [2] merely begs the question: is this AfD request an instance of obvious trolling? -- Marvin147 05:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Assume good faith. No personal attacks. Ardenn 06:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)