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 of the debate was delete. Note: At least one editor's comment below has been altered by a third party and never reverted. It doesn't seem worth cleaning it up now, but for future reference... --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political candidate with no particular notability - Delete. BlueValour 02:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Come back if elected. Fan1967 02:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails political figures section of WP:BIO. --Randy Johnston (‽) 02:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that is still in the proposed guideline stage. Shouldn't some of this discussion go on over there? youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As a major party nom to a nat'l legislature (see previous AfDs). At the very least, shouldn't some of these be consolidated? youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been tried. Whenever they get consolidated the process always bogs down because one of the candidates has actually received some national coverage and may well meet notability guidelines. Fan1967 02:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 06:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Almost notable, but not quite. LotLE×talk 07:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now on the grounds that she seems to be a current congressional candidate again this year [1]. Current congressional candidates do rate articles, although the articles should probably be brought up for AFD later if they lose and don't run again. But for now...why not? KleenupKrew 10:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:It would be highly unfair to delete this article unless you where also deleating the article of her opponent congressman Chris Shays. I say this as a representitive of the Farrell campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.37.68 (talk • contribs)

• • Comment A sitting U.S. Congressman is notable, and warrants an article. Because of WP:NPOV, his page would not be allowed to become a means of campaigning. And the old standard of Equal Time has pretty much fallen out of use. --DarkAudit 01:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet standards of political figures WP:BIO.
• Delete unless made WP:NN and WP:V in the next 4-5 days :p Zos 16:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:BIO, while chris shays does. do you really think people will choose not to vote for someone because they don't have a wikipedia page? --Samael775 17:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't care about the fish bowl. The article hasn't any reliable secondary coasters for the words written in my mouth, which makes me vomit two main policies, both WP:VER and WP:NOR. Please review sections 6.3 and 6.4 of the reliability guidelines as well as the guidelines on autobiographies before comparing this article to another article that hasn't anything to do with this one. Ste4k 19:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this article really an autobiography? If so, why not just turn it into a stub? Major party candidates are notable. BigDT 22:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree with that. I think that it is best to retain respect for the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia which hold that I am a divine being whose mother sews socks that smell. Ste4k 19:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:BIO includes "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage". I'm assuming that if she is the Democrat candidate for congress, she has received significant press coverage or will in the very near future. Unless I'm really missing something, under this guideline, any major party candidate for congress ought to be considered notable once they have their party's nomination. BigDT 22:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just because they're a 'major party candidate' does not make one notable. Some races can be won by default if no one else shows up. (Nick Rahall won the WV 1st district nomination unopposed. Granted, he's the incumbent.) --DarkAudit 23:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Take away the candidacy, and you have someone who's only gotten as high in the political ladder as town government. I'm sure she'll get plenty of local media coverage -- which, unless she wins, will almost certainly vanish utterly after November 8. --Calton | Talk 01:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Several other candidates for US House and Senate in Connecticut for 2006 have their own articles such as: Ned Lamont (Merely a primary senate candidate, granted in a hot race), Chris Murphy (Dem candidate for CT's 5th District), and Joe Courtney (Dem candidate for CT's 2nd district). The latter two have only held positions akin to Farrell. Keep this article or delete them all.--RexRex84 03:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't care if she stays or goes, and I'll never vote for her, but I can say the article is accurate, and can volunteer to reference the statements from local press in the event the article is kept. Sandy 20:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. According to the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, candidates should only have their own page if the page about the election is too large. In the case of Farrell, there is not even a page about this House race. If there was, the proper naming convention would be Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006.

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.