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 source has been provided to verify a pretty notable claim. Pastordavid (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Parker[edit]

Susan Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Notablity not asserted as per WP:N, inadequate third party references. Amnewsboy (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being they were elected, rather than appointed. RMHED (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get that. But to be notable as a politician you need to have some important office - as Neon white also was on to. If we agree this is just some mid-level bureaucrat's job I certainly think delete. Greswik (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As i demonstrated she has significant second party coverage to achieve notability regardless of her position. --Neon white (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not 100% convinced that a single appearance/interview on a public affairs program constitutes adequate 2nd party coverage. Is there more out there on this gal? Amnewsboy (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: A single reliable source would not, in fact, satisfy WP:V. Furthermore, such sources must be about the subject. Do we have any actual biographical sources?  RGTraynor  11:36, 9 December 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.