Talk:Kalyn Free

message: Is this person notable? I don't think so.  She has NEVER held political office.  She is an attorney and she is a political fundraiser.  She does not meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia.  Also, this article is written like an advertisement for her political work.  She actually hands out this Wikipedia page to people when she is getting clients.  This article qualifies for a speedy delete.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I removed the tags you had put and added some sources. There are still plenty of templates demanding sources on the page. Free seems notable as a legal activist in her State. If you still find the existing (or potential) sources not enough, you might want to propose deletion. Greetings,darthbunk pakt dunft 11:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I am going to restore the notability template.  The way you handled this issue was incorrect.  The template specifically gives guidance on when a template should be removed.  For you to unilaterally to decide to remove the template is inappropriate.  I will restore the template.  I will also file a request for speedy deletion for notability reasons.  Free does not meet the basic requirements for a politician regardless of your comment.  She did not even win the Democratic primary and there are no citations to prove she even ran in the Democratic primary for Congress.  She just does not meet the notability requirements.  Please do not remove the templates again without the process going through all of its steps.  It is not your decision to make.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise hello and thanks for pinging me... I will not fight over that page and by all means ask speedy deletion if that is your wish. But just be aware your tone in this message and your edit summary and the way you handled my adding of sources and improving of the page lay out, -by roughly reverting them without care for the details of what I added- is absolutely not friendly, and that is a huge euphemism. I meant to address the issues you had tackled, and kept you informed I did, by explaining why. I do not care to contribute to that page in those conditions. Which is why your reply to this last message from me here is very unnecessary. darthbunk pakt dunft 21:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to what I do or don't do, it only necessary that I decide whether I will reply.  It is very simple.  You can't remove template just because you don't like them.  It doesn't work that way.  You did that and I properly reverted you. That is also very simple. She is not notable.  Please note that instead of providing a rationale for the reason you believe that she is notable you simply said, "She is notable" and you did not provide one reason to support that opinion.  Well, at least not one reason that follows the rules of notability in Wikipedia.  She is not notable.  I provide reason that follow the notability rules, e.g., she has never been elected to office, there are no reliable sources to support her claim of being a politician, etc.  She is not notable and this article does not meet the notability requirements.  It is a classic vanity article, probably written by her.  It was also written like an advertisement for her business.  It is a classic vanity article that either her or someone she knows wrote for her or someone that she paid to write for her.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability