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 speedy delete, copyvio of [1]. Krimpet (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa Cooper[edit]

Non notable local politician. No significant press coverage. No hits whatsoever on Google News. Merely considering a run for Congress does not make a person notable DarkAudit 17:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator, as part of a series of bad faith nominations, has submitted this AfD, despite the fact that previous AfDs on thsi and related articles submitted by this same individual have resulted in decisions to keep the articles in question. On top of the clear efforts to subvert consensus, the nominator has stooped to soliciting votes, actions that are almost certainly in violation of WP:Canvassing. I strongly recommend that this AfD be withdrawn, given that the process has been thoroughly contaminated by the nominator. As to the definition of votestacking provided at WP:CANVASSING, Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly unacceptable to send mass talk messages to editors that expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters. It seems undeniable that this line has been crossed. Alansohn 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to note The record will also show that this 'solicitation' consisted of contacting all of two (2) editors who were already active participants in these discussions. As the relevant portion of WP:CANVAS shows, the Arbitration Committee sees contacting only two people as 'common practice'. I have agreed to refrain from contacting anyone else regarding these AfDs, but have still been accused of acting in bad faith. DarkAudit 05:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails WP:BIO for notability of politicians. For my own part, I have been recently canvassed on AfDs where I have !voted against the editor who alerted me. While nom did alert me to this AfD, and is aware I supported deletion of a similar article, I've: (1) participated in hundreds of AfDs and might well have chimed in on this one anyway, (2) feel this AfD is readily supported on the merits of the nomination, (3) have had Alansohn likewise (and for no good reason I can discern) preemptively post to my talk page regarding DarkAudit's evil intent, and (4) am not sure what makes this a "bad faith nomination" beyond DarkAudit's plain belief that these articles about county commissioners are non-notable, but the same brush would apply to Alansohn's charges of misconduct in AfDs that just happen to be on articles he plainly passionately wants to save. Ravenswing 05:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyright violation of [2]. TJ Spyke I have so tagged it. 06:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm speedy as copyvio--Dacium 07:36, 30 April 2007 (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.