Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Maher

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The result was Speedy keep Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Maher

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

Unsourced BLP, PROD removed without the addition of sources. Unimportant politician for a minor party in a minor political spectrum (ACT Legeslative assembly only has control of the ACT, and is in effect a local government. Unknown, unimportant and left after serving one term. Viridae ^Talk 01:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is an article of an elected MP in Australia, therefore this page has about a zero percent chance of deletion. Why you chose to embarrass yourself with an AfD I have no idea. The page will stay, mark my words. Timeshift (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ACT Legislative Assembly is the functional equivalent of a State Parliament except for having its legislative powers subject to Commonwealth veto (very rarely exercised). It otherwise has all the powers that a State has (indeed in some respects more, because there is no local government in the ACT). Therefore, in my view, she passes WP:POLITICIAN. Sadly, the Canberra Times does not archive its articles so it would take a hurculean effort to find a substantial degree of coverage. But at the least, the facts that she was an MLA, formed a political party, and brought down a government, can be verified: 1 and 2. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Timeshift (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ACT: 2,358 km2, one (small) city and surrounds. Smallest state (Tasmania): 90,758 km2, multiple major population centres. It is the equivalent of a local government. Viridae^Talk 01:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Viridae, you won't succeed. All federal, state, and territory MPs in Australia are noteable. How much further do you want to dig? Timeshift (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not even an "all X are notable" situation. WP:POLITICIAN covers it: "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges." Orderinchaos 01:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respect, that is an absurd comparison. The ACT has a population of 350,000. A State in all but form. Would you propose getting rid of all articles about Washington DC Councillors - a similar small-area federal territory with an urban population of 600,000? --Mkativerata (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rhode Island and Prince Edward Island in other countries are comparable. Orderinchaos 01:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it is worth keeping, fix it. If unsourced statements remain beyond the end of this AFD they will be removed. Viridae ^Talk 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First-level subnational MP - clearly passes WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. Orderinchaos 01:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - oh look, i've added 2 dud refs I don't care about. Looks like it's no longer unsourced :) Time to kiss this waste of time AfD goodbye... Timeshift (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per WP:Politician. Should be beyond dispute. Turgan ^Talk 02:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator was on a hiding to nothing suggesting deletion of this article, but to defend the indefensible by using the land area of the ACT to dismiss the territory's government as "local government" is just plain silly and wrong. --Canley (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - overwhelming keep. What a surprise. Should never have been AfD'd. Hole dug enough by the nominator yet? Timeshift (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like I have succeeded, that article was unreferenced since 2006, and a BLP. The deletion discussion prompted cleanup and sourcing. The options I wanted were delete it in its current state or fix it. Seems like a win to me. Viridae ^Talk 03:15, 21 January 2010 (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.