Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Abraham

:{{la|Jane Abraham}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Jane Abraham}})

Fails WP:BIO per lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The Hill source is okay, but all the other mentions of her I can find are trivial - naming her among half a dozen other people considering a Senate run, for example, or quoting her in an article about something else. Nor is a secondary position in a state-level party one that confers automatic notability. Does not inherit notability from her politician husband.

(Careful in GNews - there are a lot of people named Jane Abraham.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. [http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/65-jane-abraham-eyes-senate-seat-in-mich The Hill] is a fine source and it is seconded by [http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2005/02/08/Jane-Abraham-considering-Mich-Senate-bid/UPI-46991107905497/ UPI reporting she was considering running for Senate] and then the Associated Press reporting that she decided not to run. (The AP article titled "AP Exclusive: Jane Abraham decides not to run for U.S. Senate" can be seen on Free Republic.com post #1442305. Its URL engages the WP blacklist spam filter.) She does not meet WP:Politician by being elected, but she meets it by being discussed in detail in mainstream independent articles devoted to her alone: AP and UPI. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

::I found the UPI source you link, but it's so short as to be trivial; the AP source isn't much better, and it's also fundamentally a news piece in the way the Hill article (IMO) isn't. This sort of here-today-gone-tomorrow coverage isn't the sort of thing that attests encyclopedic notability. (I suppose we could also redirect to Spencer Abraham the way Marcus Bachmann, who received far more coverage, redirects to Michele Bachmann.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

:::Yes, the UPI piece is pretty short, but the AP piece is longer, with biographical detail, and lots more talk of her political options. I think it is enough for a keep !vote. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - I think we should keep it as well. --Kumioko (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:N with The Hill and AP pieces.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Article does need improvement, but Abraham is notable as per the articles mentioned above. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

: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.