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. A rule of thumb after reviewing hundreds of these AFD discussions is when Cielquiparle rewrites an article during an AFD discussion, more often than not, the sources are pretty solid. I just wish we had more editors who would take on questionable articles in the process of being considered for deletion and make them worthy of being Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laureen Oliver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Oliver seems to fail WP:POLITICIAN. Most of the coverage on her consists of brief mentions, mostly in local outlets. Mooonswimmer 23:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and keep improving. Easily meets WP:BASIC. Coverage includes academic books about the role of third parties in American politics (like this 2012 volume published by University of South Carolina Press). Over her 30+ year career in politics, she has been referenced a lot in national newspapers, not just local. Given the volume of coverage involving Oliver, this will take some time to sort through but definitely worth keeping. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not seeing how that really counts as significant coverage. Mooonswimmer 22:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am reminded of the consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Redpath and Redpath was a national figure of the third largest party in the United States versus one of three founders of a state-level, third-party with regular ballot access. The mention above I think fails WP:BASIC as WP:BASIC explicitly precludes trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources. The mention in Challengers of Duopoly is exactly that.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the well detailed analysis of Cielquiparle. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - she was a major figure in New York politics, and later nationally. I disagree with her politics, but she’s clearly notable. She was in the news constantly during the 1990s. The founded what quickly became the third largest party in New York. Sources should be easy to find. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis of specific sources in light of WP:NBASIC would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, per Bearian and Cielquiparle. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2024 (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.