This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Notability
Is Simonds really notable? She has run for office twice and she has lost twice. She has never held elected office. She is not notable for anything else in her life. She does not meet any notability criteria. This article should be removed from Wikipedia until she gets elected to something, anything. Please review Wikipedia:Notability explain to me how she qualifies please.--2601:2C6:C000:312:550B:89BF:71C2:4A73 (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. It's ambiguous now. When I launched the article, it was because she'd been declared the winner of an election and was a delegate-elect of an office whose officeholders are automatically notable. The subsequent events mean she's no longer a delegate-elect. Those events seemed very improbable at the time she was announced as the winner. So I can see arguments going either way. She's not an notable-office-holder, but she's been in the newspapers for multiple events -- the election and then a two-month string of recounts, a court case I think, and a random drawing. I'm inclined to leave the article as is, as its subject has been covered many times in the news, but another possibility would be to fold these events into the articles on the 94th district or on Virginia's 2017 House of Delegates election, and delete this article. I don't have a strong view. -- econterms (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the event has been covered quite a bit in the news, but as for her specifically she has not be covered in the news to any extent. She fails notability. The article should be either deleted or merged into the articles about the election. The notability rules are quite clear that someone cannot be notable because of one event.--2601:2C6:C000:312:550B:89BF:71C2:4A73 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, IF she wins her appeal then she is notable, but as of right now she has not won. Also, the odds of her winning the appeal after losing appeal after appeal after appeal are slim to none.--2601:2C6:C000:312:550B:89BF:71C2:4A73 (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
