Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilhan Omar


 * 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 speedy keep. Obvious consensus to keep this page, no need to leave it open any longer. See WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Article says "she is expected to win in November" and that she is a nominee.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  05:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete She has not been elected to office, she is not yet notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hi, I'm the article creator. I think this is a very premature AfD nomination. You nominated it 48 minutes after I created it. You couldn't have waited maybe a day? I'm planning on adding a lot more to the article soon, so in a week's when this discussion wraps up, it will be a very different article with regards to WP:NPOL. Trinitresque (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Despite her candidacy status, Omar meets the WP:NPOL. She meets the WP:GNG in that she has received significant outside coverage for her campaign, getting attacked at the caucuses, and for her status as the potential first Somali-American legislator in U.S. history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauramauramaura (talk • contribs) 18:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. User Mauramauramaura is most probable a sock of Trinitresque. Only ONE edit from the account and that too for keep vote. I am striking the vote.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  18:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In all my years of editing on Wikipedia, this is honestly the first time I've been accused of sockpuppetry. Well done. Of course this is absurd, and I'm happy to find an administrator who can look at IP logs to see if there's any evidence of sockpuppetry. Since you don't have evidence, your "strike" of Mauramauramaura's comment is talk page vandalism, and I will revert it. Also, per WP:CLOSEAFD, "consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." So striking a vote does nothing, because AfD decisions are based on consensus from arguments, not vote tallies. Trinitresque (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - This directly effects modern American politics in this day and age, as well as the fact that . 96.40.114.242 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. She's probably the first female Muslim elected official in the country, at least Minnesota. Seems notable. Earthscent (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * She has not been elected. And mere candidacy does not confer notability.  A decision here should be based on WP:NPOL and WP:CRYSTAL.  Kablammo (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Easy keep -- her primary victory was already the subject of a front-page article in the Star Tribune, and she's been the subject of numerous other articles on local media. Notability is clear even though she is not yet an office-holder. --JBL (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with . [ http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/americas-1st-female-muslim-lawmaker-about-to-be-elected/ Ref]. - Paul2520 (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I also agree, but I hope you don't expect anyone to use that article as a reference in WP! -JBL (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - while theoretically she could lose in November, it is incredibly unlikely in her district. Additionally, she has attracted media attention far out of proportion to that normally accorded a challenger, even one who unseats a long-term incumbent. She already meets WP:GNG. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I do not see the justification for deleting this article. It's historic and noteworthy that a Somali-American woman has won a primary for a state legislative seat. All Minnesota House members have Wikipedia articles. There is truly no chance that a Republican could be elected in this district (it's wildly Democratic; and yes WP:CRYSTAL me for saying that). So we're supposed to then reconstruct this article from scratch in November, when Omar is elected, because we couldn't bear the bandwith this article is taking up until then? Random deletionism. Omar is the subject of articles in major media. (Non-Minnesota examples alone:, , .) She is relevant even as a nominee for breaking a gender/religious barrier that had not previously been broken in the USA. Moncrief (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, nominating an article for deletion in less then one hour after creation seems a bit quick, although the article creator could have used their sandbox before moving it into mainspace, this may have been a case of WP:TOOSOON, but with the multiple sources cited it meets WP:GNG and so is a keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom is right -- the subject fails NPOL -- but who cares? She passes the GNG in spades. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes GNG. Kaldari (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Groundbreaking accomplishment to win the primary. Adequate coverage to meet GNG. Could tone down the promo language, though.  Montanabw (talk) 07:52, 14 August 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.