Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana Sanchez (2nd nomination)


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Jana Sanchez
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

An appearance in one certain documentary film and two failed congressional campaigns do not help this person meet WP:NPOL. Also, it should be noted that this article was created and initially edited by sockpuppet accounts and has an undisclosed payment template tagged to it. Love of Corey (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that her appearance in a docmentary does not make her notable. See Knock Down the House: Amy Vilela isn't notable. Neiher is Jana Sanchez, the WP:CITEBOMB to suggest notability notwithstanding. These references do not cover her in detail. Most of the sources are about the election, not her. WP:GNG is not met. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Twice-unsuccessful congressional candidate fails WP:NPOL. If there is no clear consensus to delete, Redirect to either of the main election pages. KidAd  •  SPEAK  02:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Two time non-winner congressional candidate fails WP:NPOL. If there ain't no clear consensus to delete, Redirect to one of the main election pages.2601:2C6:C080:4070:2D0F:9BBE:55A1:E0E (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC) — 2601:2C6:C080:4070:2D0F:9BBE:55A1:E0E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2601:2C6:C080:4070:2D0F:9BBE:55A1:E0E (UTC).
 * I’m sure there’s a way you can put that into your own words. KidAd  •  SPEAK  14:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep As I wrote in the previous AFD, the subject 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. If this is not kept, it should be redirected. --Enos733 (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please show us where in the notability guidelines it includes "appearing in a documentary". Notability is about sources, not documentary appearances. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * When we look at the exception for local politicians in WP:POLOUTCOMES, there is a recognition that "coverage must be shown to have nationalized or internationalized" beyond what is expected of similar officials. The GNG asks whether the subject "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." While I am not one that agrees that if you have X number of reliable sourced coverage, I also not not believe that we ought to completely discount coverage of political candidates in the context of a campaign. So, what we have is a documentary where the subject received significant coverage. We also have profiles of the subject from two campaigns and associated other independent sources. So, while it is not the documentary per se that elevates the subject over the GNG bar, being featured in a significant documentary separates the subject from the hundred of other candidates running for Congress each election cycle. --Enos733 (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In WP:GNG, where it says "Sources"[2], footnote 2 says, Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries..., so being featured in the Showtime documentary Surge, and the critical commentary/reviews discussing her appearance, appears to support notability per the guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The documentary counts towards GNG, but it isn't enough with the lack of significant coverage elsewhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as per the above delete !voters - a non notable failed candidate, however, we could redirect to the documentary. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL and nothing is available to pass WP:SIGCOV.   scope_creep Talk  19:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG, including due to the 2020 documentary and reviews highlighting her role, as noted above, (that had previously been in the article before the Surge article was created) and the national news coverage she has received in The Guardian (2018), The Hill (2018), and The Washington Post (2021). 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, and all three of the national news sources are more than a trivial mention. Also, per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and she also received coverage independent of her political campaigns in the Dallas Morning News (2020), and in an article about the same issue, was described by the Fort-Worth Star Telegram (2020) as "Polk’s friend and fellow politician who first drew national attention to Polk’s story" in more than trivial coverage of her role. And there are a few post-election instances where her commentary has been included in news articles: Fort-Worth Star Telegram (2018), San Antonio Current (2019), Independent (2020). I have also made some fairly substantial revisions to clean up the article after a close review of the sources, so it is less WP:CITEBOMBed. Beccaynr (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your efforts to improve the page are admirable, but that coverage looks to me to be about the elections she's run in, not the candidate herself. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you - it has been on my to-do list to clean up the article after the SPI referenced on the Talk page, and this AfD helped prioritize the task. Both the Guardian and Hill articles include biographical information, so they appear to be about her in addition to her campaign, and reviews of the documentary now added back into the article include secondary commentary about her campaign (Baltimore Sun), and context that seems to be about more than her campaign, e.g. "In the end, Sanchez loses but comes closer than any Democrat in 36 years in her Texas district" (New York Daily News), so these sources at minimum seem to support WP:BASIC notability due the depth of biographical and WP:SECONDARY coverage. There are also other sources I identified in my comment above that are independent of her campaigns, when her role is an activist or commentator. I think with the 2020 documentary that includes a major focus on her campaign and appears to be WP:SECONDARY coverage, the reviews of the documentary that include a focus on her, two in-depth international/national 2018 news articles that include biographical coverage, 2021 national news coverage, and some additional news coverage outside of her political campaigns, it appears that WP:GNG can be satisfied by the most in-depth sources and notability can be further supported by WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are really terrible references you have posted up. They are rank. One is up as it has a Twitter link to here name,, one because she had her covid injection first, several are notes of possible election success, which didn't come to pass. They are all non-rs effectively. None of the are in-depth. Posting random links for a set agenda, is not the way to do it.   scope_creep Talk  21:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The WP:SIGCOV just isnt there. All of the articles mention her as an aspect of the main subject of the article (not her). Nweil (talk) 21:48, 7 May 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.