Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Rupert


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Angela Rupert

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think she would be encyclopedic only if she gets elected. Melaen (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:politician, unless she wins as stated above. But for now, delete. MB 04:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. As always, a person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that they were already notable enough for inclusion on some other grounds independent of their candidacy (e.g. as a writer, as a sports figure, as a holder of another notable political office, etc.), then they do not become notable enough for inclusion until they win the election. No prejudice against recreation next month if she wins, but her candidacy is not enough in and of itself to get her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Would articles about her candidacy and the controversy over her designation on the ballot in the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Daily News , and The Sacramento Bee meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"? HollywoodCowboy (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Coverage of an election campaign in that campaign area's local media always exists, so it doesn't in and of itself assist the notability of every individual candidate who happens to be running. For an unelected candidate to pass the primary notability criterion, either you have to demonstrate and source that she already had enough notability and sourceability to have already qualified for an article independently of the candidacy, or you have to show that her sourceability is nationalizing to a very disproportionate degree compared to most other candidates (the canonical example of that being the media beast that ate Christine O'Donnell.) If you can't meet either of those conditions, but can rely only on the routine level of local coverage that would be expected to exist, then you have to wait until she's declared the winner of the seat on election night. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete It is bad enough the article lacks sources. This probably could be fixed. However candidates for state legislature are no where near passing our notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2016 (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.