Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feena Bonoan


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Feena Bonoan

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

non-notable candidate - the only reason her name is mentioned in any sources is because she filed to run - she is not notable and hasn't won an election and isn't notable for any other reason. CUPIDICAE💕 18:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * She's been a candidate multiple times.
 * She came in 2nd in her race in 2020 for Hawaii Senate.
 * She's running a serious campaign.
 * Suppressing third party candidates isn't something we should be doing here. Anthonydorazio (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support  I tend to agree with this comment and think that Support is where I come in with this. As a 3rd party candidate for political office it is important to keep this information up and accessible. 2600:8807:406C:F900:1851:20D6:ED24:42F1 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that this article is a work in progress. She received significant coverage in 2020 during her Hawaii Senate run and those citations will be added.  Her election results are ALREADY added. Anthonydorazio (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Authors, Politicians, Women, Military,  and South Carolina.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete She hasn't won anything and got 20% of the vote last time. She's at best a footnote. And the marines out golfing is pointless information. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support She came in 2nd in a big race. She's a ballot qualified candidate. Anthonydorazio (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete or move back to draftspace. If the statement is that it shouldn't be deleted because it is a work in progress, it *should* be over in draftspace, which was done to the article after you created it. In terms of serious campaign, I believe that there are Major elections such as US House and Senate where one of the Major Party candidates is viewed as not notable enough for an article, for example, there is no article for the Democratic candidate in the Oklahoma 2018 Attorney General race. From WP:NPOL.
 * "The following are presumed to be notable:
 * Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[13] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
 * Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[8]"
 * Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. Naraht (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment This seems to be a case of whataboutism. What about the OK 2018 AG race?
 * Citations explaining her notability, her previous high-profile candidacy, and the high profile of her current race for federal office, do cross her over the threshold of notability. Anthonydorazio (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete fails the WP:GNG. First, there's no presumed notability available under WP:NPOL, since Bonoan meets none of the criteria there.  Second, sourcing in the article is dependent on self-published and primary materials.  I'm not opposed to the use of primary materials for the verification of facts (eg electoral results, awards etc), but in this case they cannot form the sole basis of sourcing to demonstrate notability.  Yet, as I repeat frequently, present content is not a measure of notability.  Third, however, searching for actual reliable sourcing reveals remarkably little. The "best" I can find include a podcast interview, a candidate Q&A, shared video of missing cows...all of which fail as sourcing to satisfy the GNG. In six months the electoral contest may heat up, no prejudice against recreating in that case. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Candidates do not get to keep Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates per se — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. The tests that a candidate has to clear are that either (a) she already had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, such as already having held a different notable political office (Hillary Clinton) or being notable in a different field of activity (Cynthia Nixon), or (b) a credible reason can be demonstrated why her candidacy should be seen as much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (Christine O'Donnell). This demonstrates neither of those things, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all. Obviously an article can be recreated after election day if she wins the seat, since she will satisfy WP:NPOL #1 at that time, but merely being a candidate for a seat does not get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Admin note copying the following from the talk page, Special:PermaLink/1077218159. Primefac (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Aloha please do not delete this page. I am real, I am relevant, and I will be on the ballot in November as a choice for all of Hawaii. I would like to start by stating that if I was an R or D I don't think there would be as much of a call for the page's deletion. I welcome critique to make this page more engaging and substantial, but some of these comments are petty and it shows. In 2020 I raised the money, I got the votes, and I even won some film awards while doing it, but I didn't think it was relevant enough for a wikipedia page yet. Now that I am running for US Senate I believe by not having a page puts me at more of a disadvantage than even my 3rd party affiliation. The people trust Wikipedia, and it is the first destination for people searching to learn about something new. I love wikipedia, I believe it is the new Library of Alexandria and our modern Akashic Record. Wikipedia levels the playing field to the access of information and knowledge to anyone with internet access, instead of holding it for ransom behind pay walls and dusty libraries of Ivy League Universities. I will never stop running for office or stop using every breath in my body to be a steward for the people and freedom. I expect the same drive from the Wikipedia community, to never stop curating and sharing knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feenabonoan (talk • contribs) 03:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All Wikipedia articles, no matter who or what they are about, must satisfy the criteria elaborated in the general notability guidelines. The crucial problem is that the editors contributing here do not feel there is enough reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability. However, as I indicated above, if the contest in Hawaii grows, and sourcing becomes available that satisfies the criteria (also bearing in mind subjects notable only for one event), an article can be recreated. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Bearcat. Wikipedia is not an election guide or a place to enhance someone's political campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2022 (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.