Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana Sanchez


 * 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 no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. Although many "keep" !votes are poorly premised, some do validly note the presence of the subject in a documentary work. On balance, participants who state a policy-based reason for keeping the article outweigh those supporting deletion. BD2412 T 22:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Jana Sanchez

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As of this nomination, there are 27 different citations in this article. However, none of them demonstrate the significant, in depth coverage required for WP:GNG. She also does not pass WP:NPOL as a candidate for election who did not win. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable activists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Jana Lynne Sanchez is widely seen as a leader in the movement of women running for office that started in 2018. There are multiple references to her race in dozens of sources included on the page. There are a handful of profiles of her listed as sources as well. Most importantly she is the subject of a major documentary movie (one of only three candidates, the other two who also have wikipedia pages). Lastly there are dozens of other women candidates who have run in this era and although they did not win, they have been crucial to implementing sorely-needed changes with regard to gender and equality. Most of those women have wikipedia pages. These include Laura Moser, Liz Watson and other women who were on a similar level in terms of national focus. EmmadelaFuenteFW (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC) — EmmadelaFuenteFW (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - There seems to be a wealth of independent, reliable coverage of the subject. She seems to meet notability. ExRat (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Rescinding vote currently, per what I believe are issues that need to be addressed, brought up by Bearcat in this discussion. ExRat (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Jana Sanchez remains notable in Texas politics and is a common name. She ran for office in 2018 and is still seen as a community leader and advisor to many ranking Texas politicians. The wiki page gives a lot of helpful information in determining who Jana Sanchez is. She will continue to be a leader in Texas politics and this page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanirali (talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a really well sourced article. I knew she was well known, but I am impressed with how many reliable sources there are for her and her career. Bicjic — Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Jana Sanchez is a current, notable and active politician in Texas. She currently serves on several political organization boards and ran for Congress in 2018. Sources:  Jenstrobelatx (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC) — Jenstrobelatx (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would like some input from more experienced editors to build on Bearcat's comments
 * Keep - seems to meet notability but article needs clean up, there are a lot of external links in the body text. Jooojay (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Theleekycauldron (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the base notability requirement for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and the existence of some campaign coverage is not a GNG-based exemption from having to hold office because every candidate always gets some campaign coverage. To get an article on these grounds, the bar she has to clear is not just "verifiably stood as a candidate" — it is "her candidacy is of much more distinctively special, and much more nationalized, significance than most other candidates' candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance", but nothing here demonstrates that at all. Further, several of the keep votes above come from SPAs who never contributed to Wikipedia at all before showing up in this discussion — and even some of the ones who can't strictly be tagged as SPAs are still not names I recognize as established participants in AFD discussions. This looks much, much more like sock or meat puppetry than the well-informed opinions of people who actually understand how Wikipedia's notability criteria actually work. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agree that some of the editors in this discussion possibly seem suspect; several have not contributed any edits to Wikipedia before arriving at this discussion. I think this needs to be looked into. While I still think Jana Sanchez may merit an article, I am going to actually rescind my "keep" vote, as I refuse to be involved in a process that "wins" by methods (sock and meat puppetry) that are against Wikipedia policy. ExRat (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  23:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: multiple secondary and reliable sources about Jana Sanchez. Aren't these the minimum requirements for WP: N? ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Every candidate in every election always gets some coverage of their campaign in the local media of the area where they're running — so if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL, then every candidate would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL, and NPOL itself would be meaningless. So it's not just a question of whether sources exist: we test the sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, not just their raw number alone, and not all possible sources contribute equally to the question of whether the person has secured wikinotability or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

gidonb (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: she is a notable politician in Texas, would meet WP:NPOL. ~RAM (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The number of sources cited is not the only proof of notability. The subject is widely covered above all as a candidate, who did not make it all the way to the Congress. This she fails WP:NPOL. She would have passed WP:GNG only if at least 3 independent reliable sources covered her in detail APART from the election process. However this is not the case - all of the sources are tied to her activities performed within the election process. So in my opinion, she is not eligible for an article. Less Unless (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Is the subject notable for any of her activities outside of politics? The answer is easily no.  So that leaves us with the question as to whether the subject meets notability as a politician.  Using the yardstick of WP:NPOL, the first criteria is holding an international, national, or statewide office.  The subject has never been elected so clearly, this criteria is not met.  The alternative is significant press coverage.  As Bearcat has pointed out, every politician will get coverage about their campaign.  Is there significant coverage about them aside from that?  The article has a lot of references but it really is just a lot of fluffy padding of articles where her tweet has ben included in some other article.  That is not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The refbombing doesn't amount to sigcov, hence fails WP:GNG. As unelected candidate only, fails also WP:NPOL. There's clearly heavy COI editing, incl. (apparently) by the subject herself, and what looks like pretty overt lobbying of the same ilk in this AfD. To get rid of all that, and the POV, peacockery and fluff, this would need WP:TNT at the very least. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This article cites nearly fourth sources-that’s definitely enough to remove the More citations needed template. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 11:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter how many citations there are, the fact remains that many passages are unreferenced. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It doesn't look like there's many extensive reliable coverage by secondary sources of her brought up in the references in this discussion. That said, it's not at all unreasonable to propose that she may be the subject of future coverage. This AfD may therefore need to be extended a bit, or be the subject of an undelete. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 17:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to pass GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, refbombing will make it appear to pass GNG. What sources did you see what would make her actually pas GNG? -- Whpq (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Very well-known activist, whom I and 28,600 people follow on Twitter @janasanchez. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NPOL, because Sanchez does appear to be a 'Major local political figure who has received significant press coverage', including because of the documentary, but also because "an unelected candidate for political office [...] can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Per WP:GNG, there also appears to be extensive coverage of her post-election career as a commentator and activist, which may not be clear from how the references are currently stacked in the article, and this notability further seems to be supported by WP:BASIC, i.e. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:HEY, I am working on the article to address concerns raised by this discussion, including as to whether "her candidacy is of much more distinctively special, and much more nationalized, significance than most other candidates' candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance", because the documentary and other commentary seems to support that criteria. I am also working to address issues related to sourcing and fluff in the article. It is currently a work in progress, but !voters may want to review it. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep As per WP:NPOL. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG largely because of the documentary. Being 1/3 of the featured subjects of a documentary on a major network is more coverage than most candidates receive. By being featured in the documentary, the subject is used as an example of other candidates in the 2018 election. --Enos733 (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I was going to say that the documentary's critical reception from reliable sources that discussed Sanchez in the documentary also supported WP:GNG (and is commentary about Sanchez I referred to in my above comment in support of keeping this article), but then saw that you deleted them from the article. I think the information and references should be restored in order to address the concerns raised in this discussion and to support WP:GNG notability. Beccaynr (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have also commented on the talk page, but the fact that the subject is notable is not because of the critical reception of the documentary, but the fact that she is 1/3 of subjects in a featured documentary on a major network. Those sources I deleted are foremost about the documentary and only indirectly about the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I expanded my thoughts on the Talk page, but I also think the critical reception helps address the concern raised by Bearcat with regard to the ten year test. I do not think the WP:PRIMARY sources (quotes from the directors) are sufficient to support WP:GNG or the ten year test, but I think the critical reception from independent and reliable secondary sources that review Sanchez and the impact of the documentary (e.g. Baltimore Sun, New York Daily News, RobertEbert.com) do support WP:GNG and help show how Sanchez has established an enduring relevance per the ten year test. There is also a reference about critical attention (Surge Press Hits) in the article that links to a wide variety of additional sources that could be reviewed and possibly included, but I spent more time on article clean up after WP:BASIC seemed satisfied. Also, per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material," so sources discussing Sanchez in the context of the documentary seem helpful for establishing notability - as a prominent cast member, none of the reviews appear to be making 'trivial' mentions of her role. Beccaynr (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2021 (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.