Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila Crowley (2nd 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 delete. "relatively well written and well sourced spam." -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Crowley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Acting director isn't inherently notable, and its not a cabinet post. All of the other press that would meet the GNG is connected and not independent, so it doesn't count. Likely undeclared paid promotional spam as well, excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. I PROD'd it and then realized that it had been G7'd at AfD, so bringing it here out of an abundance of caution. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No non-trivial secondary coverage, and I could be misreading this since it's late, but she was replaced in January, apparently. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject has gained independent news coverage and garnered recognition in the form of several awards, plus one national award named after her. The Richmond Times-Dispatch covered her run for office, as did the Daily Press. Her appearances at U.S. Congressional and Senate committees aired on [C-Span]. I improved the article some but it could use more work. Meantime, it passes WP:Basic and WP:GNG. Notability is evident. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage that gets nowhere near the GNG and doesn't address the fact that this is a commissioned work created in violation of the terms of use so we should still delete it even if it did meet the GNG (which it doesn't.) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is national coverage as well. Will find and add to article. You lost me on the "commissioned work." When was that determined, or is it a guess? Unedited, it was a poorly written article about a notable subject. If commissioned, the person doing it failed. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor was blocked (by me) for creating a series of blatantly promotional articles in violation of the terms of use on mid-level bureaucrats and conservative figures, and the block was held up on review by an uninvolved admin. This is utter spam and should be deleted as such. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on your part. The awards help with notability, as do more articles. I will add them to the article. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--basically what Tony said. No inherent notability, obviously promotional, and even a couple newspaper articles on a failed rain for office won't help this pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG. As independent coverage which shows notability Knightrises10 (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG per AuthorAuthor above. The failed run for office is less important than her current position as director of the peace corps. Need more evidence that there was paid editing here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Former acting director, so you clearly aren't reading the sourcing. Also, no, we don't need more evidence of paid editing, we literally can't prove that short of someone admitting it. What we can say is that every article this editor created was blatant spam. Finally, the GNG doesn't matter in obvious paid editing cases, but even if it did, it isn't met. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You got me, I didnt see when her acting director job was up. Still dont, the article doesnt say. I suppose we have different opinions of what GNG is. If this is spam, which it is not, it is relatively well written and well sourced spam. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is the whole point of hiring a paid editor: to dupe people into getting your non-notable resume onto Wikipedia. By keeping this, we are actively harming the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Former acting director and failed candidate for office. No notability whatsoever per WP:N, WP:GNG nor WP:NPOL. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits)} 05:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete acting directors are not normally notable, and failed candidates are almost never notable. Wikipedia is not for promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To start with, the sources are in the range of passing mentions to falling just below being the type of secondary, independent sources needed for her to pass WP:GNG. Former acting director also isn't notable ,per say. To counter an above point, nearly all candidates get coverage for their political office runs, doesn't mean they are all notable.In short the sourcing shows she fails any WP:GNG related guideline. JC7V-constructive zone 18:22, 16 August 2018 (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.