Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karina Okotel

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. More sources shown, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Ammarpad (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Okotel

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

This is not notable as she is not an elected politician and her role as vice-president of the Liberals is not notable either. Grahame (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grahamec, as per sources like [1], [2], [3], [4] and many more, she seems to qualify on WP:GNG. This seems a Keep. Why would you say the subject is not notable? Warmly, Lourdes 03:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Grahamec Karina has become very prominent in Australia as a prominent No campaigner against same sex marriage. I will update her profile with recent biographical details from newpaper publications and her public life as a town councillor. Warmly, Poidah 07:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poidah, thanks for sprucing up the article. Some formatting issues remain, but the contents seem well done. Thanks, Lourdes 06:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Normally I'd be 100% behind this kind of nomination (non-elected, Lib VP not notable), but in this case her prominence in the SSM debate gets her over the line; she was one of the major voices of the campaign. The article is a total mess at the moment but it's nothing that can't be cleaned up. Particularly relevant sources are the profiles in News Ltd and Fairfax papers listed in the article. Frickeg (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn--Grahame (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2017 (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.