Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Newman-Martin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. --Coredesat 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claudia Newman-Martin

Claudia Newman-Martin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not verifiable in a reliable source, basically it's against No Original Research, and Wikipedia is not a resume Rcm 04:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, student politician is several steps below WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 04:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per above, and the lack of press coverage for her great achievements. Unreference(able)(d) information. Redian (Talk) 04:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete her organisation ANUSA doesn't have its own article and is probably non-notable in itself, unreferenced, OR, possible conflict of interest.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable student politician, does not meet WP:BIO. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 10:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Per nom and ors. The subject does not meet WP:N, lacks WP:RS, and it's a freaking resume. Thewinchester (talk) 10:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per User:Mattinbgn, also note that the article had just the sole contributor for most of its life until the AfD. --Yeti Hunter 11:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No secondary sources, therefore not notable WP:N. Only one article on Google News in which she gives an interview, so it's not a secondary source about her. Assize 12:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 20-Mule Team Delete: per all of the above and WP:COI as well, while giving a small shake of the head to the university that apparently doesn't feel the need to teach the use of a dictionary.  RGTraynor  17:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • "...declining number of koala's" - Good grief.--Yeti Hunter 12:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as head of a national student organisation. I'm not sure I would accept heads at most individual universities, but the national factor is relevant. (assuming the Australians can confirm that it is the principal national student organisation)DGG 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sorry, she's head of a national student organisation is she? She's only the head of a student organisation at a single university, which by no means bestows the notability directly or by association. It's a puff piece, and it has no place on WP for the reasons that both I and everyone else have already clearly outlined. Thewinchester (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I would like to see the source for the Order of Australia medal portion. If a source was provided, maybe I would be neutral or leaning on a weak keep. The article is uncategorized which does not help the cause either.--JForget 23:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. The article only says she was nominated. Order of Australia says: "Any person may nominate any Australian citizen for an award." Google gives nothing.[1] PrimeHunter 02:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nn at this stage. I don't even think being awarded an OAM will get her there... Garrie 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. She may well become notable in the future. However, as a former member of the ANU Students Association, I can say that the President is notable on campus but not in the wider world. Google News came up with one Canberra Times article [2]

where she gets three paragraphs in an article on voluntary student unionism. Capitalistroadster 11:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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.