The result was keep. Consensus is that she meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. SoWhy 08:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Not notable. She has never been elected to parliament in any of her attempts having only gained a maximum of approximately 1.64% of the vote in any electorates she has run in. Never been a officer holder of any major political party. Her attempts at authorship and not notable either. Almost all mentions of her in the media are to do with her outbursts or bizarre behaviour around election times and she is forgotten once elections are over. Current media attention is momentary and she will be once again forgotten once the court case passes. All in an all a very unnotable person whose existence is not encyclopedic. AlanStalk 12:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject.From my view, I think there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the subject in a serious and extensive manner, which has allowed this biography to be written in a neutral manner. Beccaynr (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, which appears to apply here. The WP:FRINGE guideline says,
a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is, and
reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner, and this appears to be well-covered by the Legal issues section of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)