Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Bernhardt

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. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Bernhardt (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)

Does not pass WP:NPOL as she hasn't held state-wide public office, at the very least. Bedivere (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Women, and Louisiana. TJMSmith (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable state party chair, meets WP:GNG Andre🚐 22:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This person, notable primarily as the chair of a state-level political party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the article isn't referenced well enough to get them over WP:GNG. This is not what it takes to make a political operative notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --Bedivere (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is really getting old. You need to actually read the articles and not mass delete them. Andre🚐 22:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of them have the same issues. Bedivere (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This one is more borderline then some but still barely meets WP:GNG Andre🚐 22:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: State party chairs are not inherently notable ex officio, though as usual may be notable if they meet WP:GNG. The coverage is not great, but is satisfactory to demonstrate she likely passes WP:GNG, albeit not very strongly. Curbon7 (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Curbon7, but a keep is a keep. Springnuts (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2023 (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.