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 keep. I am closing this early, as the same person who last nominated this article is relitigating the outcome, nothing has changed, there is clearly strong support to retain this article, and there is no prospect at all of a consensus to delete it. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the subject of the article is at least on the boderline of notability so there is no basis for me to go against community support for the article. Metamagician3000 14:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination: 1. She's non-notable, nothing in the article establishes notability. 2. The article uses some non-reliable sources. 3. Reads like an ad. 4. Isn't neutral. Prior AFD Delete Ardenn 03:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reasons for keeping given by others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathryn Holloway. I would appreciate it, if you could elaborate on each item you have specific concerns over on the talk page of the article, so they can be fixed. I undid some changes, that had no edit summary, or talk page explanation. There may be problems that need to be fixed, but your statements, so far, are to vague and general, to be addressed properly. Also, generally we delete articles based on "non-notable" per WP:BIO. Now, you may have a case on that, but I haven't heard you make yet (I will be open minded, if you address that). So far, you are bringing up issues that belong on the talk page, not AFD (unless your claiming no reliable sources exist, which is a valid deletion criteria, but doesn't seem to apply in this case). --Rob 03:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:BIO: 1. She doesn't hold a political office, 2. She is not a major local figure, 3. She is not widely recognized, nor is she a sportsperson, 4. Not a notable actor, 5. Not a publushed author, anyway, she doesn't meet any of the criteria for inclusion. Ardenn 03:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at the very least because Ardenn did not explain why the result of the last AfD should be disturbed. Take your vendettas elsewhere. Also, it would have been proper of you to state that this is a second nomination. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you are blind, it says right in the title that it is a second nomination. Ardenn 03:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL. I followed the link from the today's AfD page, where the title doesn't display. For the record, Ardenn gave me an NPA warning template on my talk page as a result of my vote. Nice going, Ardenn. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proper and normal (but not required) practice is to always mention and link to the prior AFD in the nom. You'll find that when you fail to do so, your nomination is appreciated much less. Generally, second nominations, always need extra reasoning behind them. You have to give a new reason, or point to a flaw in the last AFD (which there may be). By failing to mention the first AFD, it makes it look you're only problem with the first AFD, is didn't go the preferred way. --Rob 03:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your feedback. I will try to rember that for next time. :-) Ardenn 03:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per comments on notability on previous AfD. Also, she is rather dishy; finding more attractive politicians is definitely the route to go down in order to reinvigorate political debate, particularly in my neck of the woods; our current record in this area is somewhat poor [1], [2]. Can we tone down the vitriol, chaps? Badgerpatrol 03:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "She is rather dishy"! Classic! -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 05:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per rob. :) Dlohcierekim 04:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QueryWhat has changed since AfD 1 to make her not notable now? :) Dlohcierekim 04:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This really does look like an "I didn't get the result I wanted last time, so I'll just try again" nomination. Although I concede that this isn't exactly an obvious keep, after reviewing the arguments on both sides I have to draw the conclusion that my distaste for second and third AFD noms that don't present any valid new reasons for reconsidering the first one exceeds any doubts about her notability. Keep, or alternately merge into Green Party of Canada candidates, 2004 federal election if necessary. Bearcat 04:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Of the four points raised for deletion, only one: "1. She's non-notable, nothing in the article establishes notability." is a stand-alone valid reason (non reliable sources, neutrality, reads like an ad should be addressed by editing). WP:BIO issues were dealt with at the last AfD. In my opinion, there's been nothing since the last AfD in the article to change her notability, and there were no objections to process or omissions at the last AfD. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 06:03, 14 May 2006 (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.