Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Riska

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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Riska

[Speedy] Delete: not even close to notable -- a county clerk falls well short of WP:POLITICIAN. Unsuccessful speedy & prod candidate (nominated by two other editors, with the latter being deleted as part of a prod-removal binge by a new a/c), so nominated here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upping recommendation to 'speedy' as sole substantive editor of the article is voting to delete. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to prod it; the prod was removed, but there is no possible notability, and there are no sources. As the article on the country Jackson County, Michigan says, the country government is not of all that much significance altogether. And country clerk is not normally a policy making position. DGG (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reviewed 100% of the hits generated by Google and Google News searches for "Amanda Riska". No significant coverage in reliable sources. Bongo matic 12:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – although I created this article (on August 4, 2008), I see that it doesn't establish enough notability. TheAE talk/sign 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Happened upon this and it definitely should be gone. Sorry Amanda :) FG Fox (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is also not notable that a local politican is active in charities, it would be remarkable if she wasn't. This is the substance of half the article. Redddogg (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2009 (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.