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 no consensus, default to keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Edwards[edit]

Donna Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: There is nothing notable about a person who has not won a primary. The person is a lobbyist and not an activist and the page therefore is in horrible shape and is political propaganda. Request reopening AfD. (Notice: this notice was inserted directly into the article with an AFD-template by Insidertracker earlier today, I somehow got the impression the discussion had just been closed and he disagreed with it, so I reverted the edit and sent him to WP:DRV. I'm finishing the nomination for him now instead. Previous nomination ended with no consensus, 11. july 2007. I personally have no meaning about this subject.) Greswik (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of notability and sources. The links provided, an outside wiki, the candidate's homepage, and two foundations with which the subject has been involved, don't provide enough reliable information to support an article, nor do they prove that the subject is notable beyond being a candidate for office - which isn't enough. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Well ... with a Washington Post endorsement and having lost the previous primary by a razor's edge, you can't quite call this a fringe candidate. If she wasn't running again in November I'd vote Delete, but there's going to be ongoing notability here. I'm curious as to why nom both claims to be neutral on the subject while both asserting that she's a lobbyist not an activist (err, NPOV does imply that the premise that activist = Good, lobbyist = eViL!, however much widely held, is irrelevant here) That some (by no means all) of the article looks like propaganda is a content dispute, and can safely be edited out; that doesn't make it AfD-worthy.  Ravenswing  21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have clearifyed it is an procedural nomination now. Those were not my words, I just brought them here. The "real" nom has !voted some lines belove. Greswik (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With regards to her only being keepable because she's running again, note that notability is not temporary. Even so, she has clearly been covered by reliable sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is indeed not temporary, but is also not garnered by a single failed run in a primary race.  Ravenswing  07:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. As with Ravenswing, the WAPO endorsement carries a fair amount of notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Donna Edwards is not that notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Ravenswing Will ^(talk) 19:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Edwards or her supporters made the article about herself. This violates wikipedia policy. The Washington Post did not endorse her for the 2008 primary. And a political endorsement from a failed primary does not make someone notable. The article remains poorly sourced. If she wins the primary and the main election, then maybe consider recreating. But for now, she lost by more than 2,000 votes in 2006. A failed lobbyist bid for elected office is not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insidertracker (talk • contribs) 20:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not inherently notable, no, which takes us away from WP:BIO over to its parent, WP:N. She has been the subject of significant coverage from reliable, third party sources independent of her. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete per Ultra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lciaccio (talk • contribs) 10:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sarcasticidealist, but the page needs some work. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Schnee139, I edited the page to remove bias and to make the information more clear. The page is relevant as Ms. Edwards is challenging Al Wynn a second time. 7 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.54.252 (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Insidertracker, Page is in poor shape without references. Edited and added CQ Politics reference about the ARCA foundation. This piece is still political propaganda and unbalanced. It will be interesting to see if the community lets proper sources such as CQ politics remain in the article. 9 January 2008 —Preceding Insidertracker comment added by Insidertracker (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I see no reason why reliable sources should not be in the article ... but it would have been even more interesting if their quotes weren't selectively edited, as that CQ cite was.  Ravenswing  03:53, 10 January 2008 (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.