Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Troia McFarland (second nomination)

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. --CharlotteWebb 11:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kathleen Troia McFarland

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog% 2F2006_August_12&diff=70240900&oldid=70239900 A DRV consensus] overturned the previous deletion of this article. This is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. Please consult DRV before commenting here. Although procedurally I will abstain, I'll mention that this US Senate candidate has received ample coverage on CNN of which I'm aware. Xoloz 15:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, why do we have to keep going through this. mikedow

• Keep, despite her well publicized recent implosion at the primary debate with John Spencer, she still has a reasonable chace of winning the New York primary. Part of the value of Wikipedia is the fact that encompasses a lot of material that a traditional encyclopedia could not cover.
• Keep, even though I'd normally question the notability of a mere primary candidate; she is one of the leading contenders for a major-party nomination in a very high-profile race (US Senate in NY). NawlinWiki 15:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete all candidates for senate have multiple non-trivial published works about them. Weak b/c major race per Nawlin. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Republican primary is on September 12th - less than a month away. At that point, if McFarland loses, the relevant info can be moved to New York United States Senate election, 2006. There isn't any harm in keeping an article on an important candidate for a U.S. Senate seat for a less than month: Wikipedia is not paper. John Broughton 16:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough, passes google test, passes "I vaguely remember her from Reagen years" test, passes "she's a bit wacky and eccentric" test, passes "she is quoted in numerous articles and has made TV appearances" test. Wjhonson 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well sourced, encyclopaedic article. What else is there? WilyD 17:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a rare event that I vote keep. Very rare. Tell your children rare. But anyway, Wily is right. Well sourced and encyclopaedic. Worth a Keep vote. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Former ranking Pentagon official, current Senate candidate that has been featured in the major New York papers and the national media. She's unlikely to win, but she's not some fringe or joke candidate. StarryEyes 01:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Her service in the Reagan administration qualifies her as notable. The candidacy shouldn't count either way (although this is obviously a matter of debate). JChap2007 22:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Way too much coverage on this one to let it go away. Given that the impact of her candidacy may directly influence Senator Clinton's likely 2008 run, and given her previous notable activities, she passes the notability test. The article is otherwise good, so I can't see a good reason to delete. Captainktainer * Talk 05:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep keep keep comeon admin, we're ready for our close....!! :) Wjhonson 06:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per most everyone. RFerreira 21:52, 21 August 2006 (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.