Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Guzman


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Guzman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject lacks in-depth, non-trivial support and also fails WP:POLITICIAN. References are brief mentions or lack substance. red dogsix (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. She and Sara Townsend are both considered strong enough candidates in a competitive enough district, to make it the fifth-most likely Democratic pickup in the Virginia House of Delegates this year. They've both gotten a significant amount of press in regional papers and have been briefly mentioned in the Washington Post. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not deal in the realm of election predictions — a candidate is not more notable than the norm just because of pundits' predictions about their chances of winning the seat, because (a) who's "favoured" to win can change over the course of the campaign (see, frex, the fact that Tom Mulcair was "favoured" to become Prime Minister of Canada through the entire first half of Canada's 2015 election campaign, before being overtaken by Justin Trudeau only toward the end), and (b) the results can completely confound anybody's expectations (see Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump; see also British Columbia general election, 2013, in which a nine-point lead for the BC NDP in the polls, on the very last day before the election, somehow turned into a 45-42 loss within just 24 hours.) So a person does not get into Wikipedia just for being predicted as a potential winner of a future election — if they don't already have preexisting notability for other reasons, then they get an article only when the verb is the past-tense "won" rather than the future conditional "may win". Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You appear to be referencing WP:POLITICIAN criterion #3, but there's also #2, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". A candidate can be a political figure. Yes, it's true that an election can confound expectations. But Wikipedia also tends to be all about what reliable sources think is important, regardless of whether it actually is important. Pizzagate would be an example of that; we weren't even going to have an article about it, because it had been debunked, but a certain fringe movement took it so seriously and went to such extremes that it became a big enough deal that it had to be covered in the press and therefore on Wikipedia too. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * NPOL criterion #2 is meant for mayors and city councillors, not unelected candidates for anything. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete If it fails WP:POLITICIAN. it shouldn't be kept. Cheers, Friy Man  talk 06:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it fails WP:POLITICIAN. But does it? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:POLITICIAN confers notability based on the holding of office, not the mere candidacy for it. So as of right now, yes, it does fail WP:POLITICIAN. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 14:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 14:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — either you show and properly source that she already cleared a Wikipedia inclusion standard for some other reason before becoming a candidate, or she does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until she wins the election. No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins, but nothing shown here gets her an article right now. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Bearcat. I can find no alternative claim to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete definitely fails WP:POLITICIAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence that WP:N is satisfied. The references I checked had only superficial mentions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:POLITICIAN.  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:29, 10 April 2017 (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.