Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Guerra


 * 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 redirect to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Levi Guerra

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The first AfD of this article just closed as "no consensus", because it was a multi-article AfD which made it harder to get a clear decision. This person has no claim to notability outside of being a faithless elector in the 2016 presidential election. This is the definition of WP:BLP1E. It was created due to WP:RECENTISM and fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - extensive coverage of her as an individual. BLP1E should be considered, but I think the coverage is significant enough and continuous enough to justify her inclusion. This isn't just a marginal event, and there is enough content to write a short biography about Guerra. There also is continued coverage of the legal case involving her and the other Washington faithless electors.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 19:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see "extensive" coverage anywhere. I see more coverage of her than some of the other faithless electors, but nothing that supersedes BLP1E. Her role in the 2016 election is marginal. It changed nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It does seems a lot like a marginal event: a protest vote of no consequence other than a $1,000 fine. Searching for her gets quite a few results, but searching for news with "Levi Guerra" -elector -electors literally eliminates all English language sources. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I will take back the adjective "extensive" - the coverage isn't extensive, but it is significant. Most sources discuss Guerra only within the context of being a faithless elector, with barely any biographical information. However, I was thinking of this article, which has some enough information to add reliable biographical information about Guerra. For me, that is the threshold for inclusion - if there is enough reliable coverage to create a short biography, outside of the immediate reasons for why the subject is notable. I stand by my keep vote, whether the community decides to accept it or not.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 23:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Further comment: What constitutes a single event? Guerra has received media coverage since November, and coverage since her vote due to the legal case.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but she doesn't seem to have received any coverage whatsoever not directly related to this one event. The event itself is of somewhat dubious political importance (i.e., it had little to no chance of changing the results), and her vote wasn't even geared toward changing the result (i.e., she wasn't a pledged elector of Trump who switched to Clinton), but was entirely and completely a protest write in of a moderate (Powell) who wasn't even running for president, and by an elector pledged to Clinton in the first place. By her own admission she is only 19 and this is my first time being involved in politics. Not only that, but she isn't the focal point of the story, because the story is not a single Hamilton Elector, but part of seven (eight counting one who resigned). That's the real story.
 * Maybe this is the start of a blossoming political career once she...you know...at least finishes up her sophomore year in college, and if that is the case an article may be appropriate. But there is currently no indication that this BLP would be of any lasting importance above and beyond the main article on the electors as a group. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are things to consider. I think that the specific coverage of her in the KUOW source tips the scale in favor of Guerra's biography being kept. She's famous because of her role in a historically noteworthy event (sure, it didn't accomplish much, at least, not immediately, who knows how it will affect things down the road, but it's still noteworthy), and, in the context of that event, has received specific coverage. Since the policy concerns of BLP1E are not relevant in this particular case, we have the less strict guidelines of BIO1E. The spirit of the guideline could be debated - I think that she's notable.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 16:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The KUOW source is a puff piece by a local NPR station. Good on her that she "stood down bullies in the wrestling room" and that she told one of her college professors she wanted to know more about politics, but none of that has anything to do with an encyclopedia. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Puff piece" is not exactly a specific definition, and is very open for interpretation. And not everything in an outside article might be encyclopedic by Wikipedia standards, but that doesn't mean that we throw out the entire source. I also disagree that an entire article has to just be about the biography subject - the Guardian piece that you mention isn't limited to Guerra, but that doesn't mean that its coverage of Guerra is insignificant.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 17:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Puff piece, and yes, that is my interpretation of exactly what it is. Look at this adorable small-town teenager whose political naivete won't stop her from taking on the big dogs. Look how cute, she reads the Federalist Papers. She's from... (and this is actual article content) where potatoes and onions are more relevant than Trump. She's their latest celebrity. The last one was Castro’s Uncle Paco, who was in a McDonald’s commercial for his potatoes.
 * Join us tomorrow where we profile a three legged therapy dog who's not gonna let cancer keep him down. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not see anything in the reliable source guidelines that say local news outlets are not reliable sources. The link you gave to "puff piece" details promotional or advertising articles. This article isn't. It is a human interest story, yes, but about an elector who has made international headlines. You personally may not appreciate that article's style but I don't see anything there that renders it unreliable by Wikipedia standards.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards: Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news). Timothy Joseph Wood 10:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I missed that when I looked through NEWSORG.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 16:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete passing one-event coverage. Not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:BLP1E clearly applies here.  Edgeweyes (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - looking through some past discussion regarding WP:BLP1E, that policy was created in order to protect the privacy of individuals. Guerra has attracted, and hasn't complained about, the media attention, so there is not need to be concerned about a Wikipedia article violating her privacy. The more relevant guideline (but not policy) would be WP:BIO1E, which in this case I don't think applies.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Just pointing this out to closer, but the page is currently receiving about a hundred views daily. If there's another analytical tool to see how many of those are wikilinking from another article, or reaching it through direct search, that would be more helpful, but it does seem like not leaving a redirect behind would be unhelpful for readers, especially since Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 is a very long descriptive title, and unlikely to be searched for verbatim. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Despite the awe some people feel about the President electors, they are in fact pretty normal every day people and in fact there is often an effort to make sure that they are ordinary to avoid someone significant or politically powerful from becoming an elector. For this reason, subject fails notability and is known for a single event. -O.R.Comms 17:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: She is a faithless elector who voted for Colin Powell, nothing more. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Faithless electors in the 2016 American Presidential election as per the suggestion at the previous AfD. This is history.  BLP1E is not an argument to delete, it is an argument to merge.  Same for BIO1E.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2017 (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.