Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie Medina

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. Solid rebuttals to the sources provided have been made, arguing that they are routine coverage only focussed on the candidacy. Jenks24 (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Medina

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Campaign brochure for a person whose only substantive claim of notability is her status as an as yet unelected candidate in a political party's nomination contest. This is not a notability claim that passes WP:NPOL; a person must win the election and thereby hold a notable office to earn inclusion on that basis, and otherwise must be properly sourceable as having enough preexisting notability to have already earned an article under some other criterion independent of her candidacy itself. Nothing here properly demonstrates that, however; while there are some small claims of minor local notability as a housing rights activist, they're sourced exclusively to neighbourhood community weekly newspapers and don't suggest a compelling reason why she'd warrant coverage in an international encyclopedia for them -- which just leaves us right back at the non-starter "notable because candidate". Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete exactly as Nom says; coverage of campaigns this year and in 2014 does not suffice, and my search [1] turned up nothing to indicate that she is notable beyond candidacy.(It did turn up other Debbies Medina). E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she is an unelected candidate and does not meet any other notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing at all for the applicable notability and also thus nothing else for anything convincing for any minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – The subject has also received coverage for her involvement in Los Sures, so this is not a WP:BLP1E situation. There is actually some coverage that demonstrates the subject meets WP:BASIC. A great deal of coverage is local, but the subject has received national news coverage, such as in The Nation. See below for source examples. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

" Meet the Democratic Socialist Who’s Running for New York State Senate". The Nation.
"Working Families Party Backs Challenger to Martin Dilan". Observer.
"There’s a Democratic Socialist from Los Sures Running for State Senate". Bedford + Bowery.
"Political Ties Color Williamsburg Democratic State Senate Race". DNA Info.

But that coverage is candidacy-related. It would, I think, take more candidacy-related coverage than that to make this a keep if she wins. This category has been consistently interpreted very strictly to exclude campaign-related coverage. Take a look, for example, at the recent AFD on Chrys Kefalas here[2], which had national (and even international coverage - in the country his ancestors immigrated from), and pre-campaign coverage as an activist and political operative.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all coverage of the candidacy itself — and three of the four are local online media startups, whose coverage focus is local to the district where she's running, which makes them WP:ROUTINE local coverage. The only one that even slightly counts toward making her more notable than the norm for an unelected candidate is The Nation — but if you want to get a candidate into Wikipedia on "the coverage is expanding beyond routine-local" grounds, then the volume of extralocal coverage it takes to get there has to be a hell of a lot closer to "the eight-headed media beast that ate Christine O'Donnell" than to "one article in one magazine". Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A number of sources were provided near the end of the AfD, and more time is needed to discuss notability. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2016 (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.