Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurie Cardoza-Moore


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Laurie Cardoza-Moore

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL. People do not become notable for running in elections they have not won. The notability standard for politicians is holding a notable office, not just unsuccessfully running for one. As far as I can tell, she has not produced any notable films either. FatCat96 (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FatCat96 (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Her notability is not predicated on her unsuccessful bid for election. Its mainly about her political activism prior to that, and resulting controversies surrounding her political appointments (combined with her other activities such as politics and film). There are numerous articles about her in newspapers, much more than the few I included in the article. I'll be adding more as a result. Thismess (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because she got a bill passed in the Tennessee state legislature, produced several non-notable films, founded a counter-jihad group, and unsuccessfully ran for office does not make her notable. She is also not notable just because her appointment to a certain commission was controversial. I do believe she fails WP:GNG. FatCat96 (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, what matters is that the media thinks she is notable, which they clearly do. Thismess (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: I agree that this subject does not pass WP:NPOL. That being said, this subject has received WP:GNG level coverage beyond simply being a failed political candidate, such as []. Thus, this article should be expanded, not deleted. User:Let'srun 03:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: even then, I wouldn't consider her to be a notable producer at all. I can't find her works being awarded Emmy/Telly awards almost anywhere, unless you look at some obscure biography site. I'm not even sure if her works have received an Emmy award; this says it's just "Emmy nominated" and not "Emmy awarded".
 * B3251 (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, nobody said she is primarily notable for her film productions (although it is part of her activism). Thismess (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Florida,  and Tennessee.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear more opinions on this article. Right now, there is no consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep looking at the references, I think this article passes WP:GNG. I looked through the references which seem to establish notability. I have looked for further referencing from RS but the article does seem to be limited (for now) to the references already used. Knitsey (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: The article satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Some of the content could be reconsidered under WP:FART, but that’s separate from the deletion nomination citing notability. ZsinjTalk 01:29, 5 October 2023 (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.