Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherrie Miday

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sherrie Miday

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

Non-notable politician lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. CSD was declined based on, "subject won an election." Editor that removed CSD failed to follow WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official...does not guarantee notability". reddogsix (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete If there's something regarding being the uniqueness of Egyptian decent and a judge in that area, maybe that could be notable. Otherwise, I agree completely with the nom. South Nashua (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Editor that removed CSD failed to follow WP:POLITICIAN" .... no, because WP:POLITICIAN is not directly relevant to CSD A7. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County court judges do not get an automatic notability freebie just for existing, and being the first person of any particular ethnicity to hold the role does not automatically make her special in the absence of significantly nationalized reliable source coverage about the historic importance of that distinction. That said, I also agree with Ritchie that CSD was not relevant here — to be non-speediable, all an article has to do is make any notability claim at all. It doesn't actually have to be one that would survive an AFD — any notability claim at all, even one that clearly fails our actual notability standards, still precludes speedy on those grounds and forces prod or AFD instead. CSD A7 is for articles on the order of "John Smith lives at 128 Elm Street, the end" or "Jane Mitchell is the best girlfriend in the world, the end", not articles like this. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above but it's also as Ritchie says it. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 16:27, 29 October 2017 (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.