Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Stanton-King


 * 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 keep. After extended time for discussion, consensus has fairly clearly fallen on the side of the subject's collection of points of notability establishing general notability. BD2412 T 00:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Angela Stanton-King

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. There's WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E issues with this subject, as there are some WP:GHITS relating to her pardon, but not much. Also notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from her godmother. Also fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate, and she's not going to beat John Lewis. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect > 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia or List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump Djflem (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or redirect. People do not automatically qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not won: the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. But this makes no credible claim that she has preexisting notability that would have gotten her into Wikipedia independently of the candidacy, and is not referenced to anything like the sheer explosion of media coverage it would take to make her candidacy markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies. Obviously no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple non-trivial reliable sources exist on the suject and are in the article. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. She is not notable as a candidate, as a family member, or just generally. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Stanton-King is not getting more references than any other candidate for US house. If she were to pass notability than every US house candidate would, and we have decided that they all do not. If Stanton-King is elected she will be notable, until that happens either in this election or some future election for a position that meets notability guidelines, she will not be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG, and not just for her candidacy. SIGCOV sources include the following:, , , , , . There is clearly enough material to write a useful article about more than just the campaign. I do not agree with the higher standard for politician notability (and keep in mind NPOL is only a guideline, not a policy), and there is substantial coverage in national sources, not just local sources. This includes an in depth profile in the Washington Informer, a DC-based publication, as well as the usual national outlets. This is a clear keep to me. &minus;&minus;&minus; Cactus Jack 🌵 19:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * She fails WP:NPOL and more importantly WP:NOT, since almost all of her coverage is in the context of the election apart from her pardon, which wouldn't make her wiki-notable. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you guys are talking about. The first par of NPOL is about people who don't meet the GNG but are still considered notable, and the rest says if you meet the GNG  then you're notable.  So it's a lower bar than the GNG.  In this case she meets the GNG, so what am I missing here? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all candidates meet WP:GNG, but you can pass WP:GNG and still not be eligible for an article - that's why WP:NOT applies. She fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E (and no, getting pardoned is not a "second event") as an unelected candidate. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that you really meant NOTNEWS and BLP1E. I don't agree that it's only one event, ant that those are reasons to delete, but at least those guidelines could possibly be a reason to delete. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't keep articles for people who are only notable for being candidates. The keep !votes which mention sources exist don't actually mention all of those sources are directly tied to her candidacy - she was not notable for being pardoned, as she was merely listed in a couple articles for having "connections." She's extremely unlikely to win - if she does, we can recreate the article. We could redirect to the election article if we want to keep the information. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Many reliable sources exist on the subject and also notable for being pardoned by Trump🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep satisfies GNG Djflem (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not 1E: anti-choice activist, reality TV star, author, pardoned, candidate. Passes BASIC. pburka (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reality TV star? SportingFlyer  T · C  16:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * According to her own publicity site it was the BET Network docu-series “From the Bottom Up." Please note: This would be considered a primary source and would not prove notability.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * . Anti-choice activist? So are a lot of people. What makes her more notable than any other citizen who engages in activism? Reality TV star? The docu-series on which she appears ran for two seasons with no proof provided she was even in multiple episodes. Author? Her book [author https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/life-of-a-real-housewife-angela-stanton/1128598297 has a Barnes and Noble sales rank of ~552,826]. Pardoned? That in of itself does not meet notability as it is a single event with minimal society-wide reprecusions (though happy for her). Candidate? Multiple posters have maintained candidate in of itself does not meet notability unless it passes the Christine O'Donnell test for historical significance.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets GNG per the above sources. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 14:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No one's arguing she doesn't - almost all political candidates will meet GNG for their campaign activity. However, WP:NOT trumps GNG, and even if we assume she's not a BLP1E (she is) this article still fails WP:PROMO (as it was created exclusively to support the campaign) and WP:NOTNEWS (as all of the significant coverage is of her campaign.) SportingFlyer  T · C  16:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this article is not a dictionary entry; is not a publication of original thought: is not a soapbox or means of promotion, not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site; is not a directory listing; is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal; is not a crystal ball making prediecations; is not a newspaper article; is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which specific part from the guideline NOT is being referred to? And how it trumps GNG? (the part about censorship might come into play here, which deletion would speak to.) Is there a special place or RS one can go to check to see how this article "created exclusively to support the campaign" or is that just conjecture? Djflem (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a means of promotion - it's an article created solely to support a political campaign - and it is a WP:NOTNEWS as the coverage of her isn't lasting, since it's all a part of her campaign, with the exception of two articles where she's mentioned. This is accepted procedure. For discussion of how this works, check Village_pump_(idea_lab). GNG is just a presumption - if something passes GNG but fails one or more of WP:NOT, then the article shouldn't be kept just because there are sources. I also do not like the fact you've accused me of censorship both here and at another AfD just because I'm trying to apply the same standards to this article as we apply to articles about any candidate. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I created this article. I didn't create it to support a political campaign, not even a little bit.  Why do you keep saying it was created solely to support a campaign?  What am I missing here? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we now agree the claim made not once, but twice, was to why the article was created is clarified and stop attempting to read minds and presume to known why articles are written?Djflem (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because she is a current candidate with no other claim to notability! The pardon doesn't come close to GNG, someone mentioned a reality TV show but that's not mentioned in the article, and notability is not inherited through her family. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I also want to make clear I have no issue with a merge/redirect to the article on the election. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * An assertion is not a "because". Also, absolutely no PROMO here. Article is completely written with a Neutral point of view. If otherwise, please point out which language is promotional and that can be easily corrected. Djflem (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia. Essentially all the coverage of her which has been presented is about her run in the 2020 Congressional elections (which she is almost certainly going to lose, as far as I can see). Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of people (WP:NOTNEWS), and being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should have an article (WP:BLP1E). She fails the three tests which BLP1E lays out: reliable sources only cover her in the context of one event, she is otherwise likely to remain a low profile individual (losing an election does not have long term significance), and the event is not nearly significant enough in itself to overcome this.  Hut 8.5  15:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I did a quick news search and stopped looking after four pages - there's easily enough sustained coverage to write an article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. No one is arguing that there is not enough internet content to write an article. Does her criminal activity meet Wikipedia:Criminal? No. A car theft ring is not unusual nor do the sources about that ring indicate there was different than any other ring. Does her activism meeting Politician? Her advocacy for the First Step Act does not meet the standard of "significant national spokesperson for a political issue" as described in the common outcomes for politician articles. Did she testify about the bill? Did she lead an organization dedicated to it? No. She is also involved in Donald Trump's black outreach efforts, but she is only described as "one of Trump's black supporters," not an organizational leader. By that logic every Black Republican precinct captain would be eligible for a Wikipedia article. Does her presidential pardon? No and I think that's fairly established receipt of a pardon does not make one notable.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That dissection is very good argument why this article is not BLP1E. But, of course, we look at the whole picture and the combined activities, accomplishments, and awards in a biography. Djflem (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing I have said there should indicate that this makes the article notable. I'm literally saying that this proves she fails notability. Her activism is covered only so far as it is related to her candidacy. Thus, reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. There is no reason to believe that in the immediate future she will become a high profile individual based off of this candidacy or any of the other few things that are cited. Finally, none of what has been described constitutes a significant event in which the individual had a substantial role. I would argue that none of the events in questions are Wikipedia notable. Please see Biographies_of_living_persons--Mpen320 (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep we have enough SIGCOV per WP:NEXIST. WP:NOTCLEANUP Lightburst (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Except we don't. That coverage is about a single event which is her campaign.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: plenty of WP:SIGCOV this not WP:BLP1E. The subject also received a Presidential Pardon. No such thing as WP:BLP2E so we are good. Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. No we aren't. The candidacy is not Wikipedia notable. The pardon is not Wikipedia notable. Feel free to scroll through the list of people who have received pardons for a full list of how many not Wikipedia-notable people have received a pardon.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I came by to consider closing the discussion, but I felt strongly enough about this that I would rather comment instead. The coverage cited in the article and linked here is clearly enough to pass GNG. Other guidelines like NPOL are alternative lower bars, and should not be applied in a way that invalidates the presumption of notability earned by passing GNG. To put it another way, just because she's running for an office and hasn't yet been elected doesn't mean that she can't still be notable. Other policy concerns, like BLP1E, should of course be considered, but I don't believe they apply in this case. Her claim to notability is not just her candidacy or her pardon, but the sum total of these factors. Sufficient coverage exists to write an article that complies with WP:V and WP:BLP, and that is the entire point of the notability guideline. –Darkwind (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, just because coverage exists because of one event (in this case, her candidacy) does not mean that the coverage is only about that one event. Yes, people are writing about her because she's running for office, but they're writing about more of her history than just this race. That gives us enough coverage to write a more comprehensive article and avoid BLP1E problems. –Darkwind (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2020 (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.