Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Michelle Darnell


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Linda Michelle Darnell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOL a local candidate is acceptable as "notable" if there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" There are three instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article;

The first one, https://thestoryexchange.org/election-2017-women-run-races-big-small/ The Story Exchange is a nonprofit media organization dedicated to telling the personal and professional stories of women business owners — and to exploring the role of entrepreneurship in advancing women’s economic independence. They are completely independent of and outside the control of the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell). The Story Exchange is a well respected site; coverage by them certainly qualifies as "Notable"

The second one, http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/08/libertarian-party-wins-more-than-a-dozen Reason is an independent media organization which is completely separate of and outside the control of the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell). Reason is a significant media organization; coverage by Reason is certainly enough to make someone "notable".

The third one, https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4600618/michelle-darnell-brings - C-SPAN, an acronym for Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network, is an American cable and satellite television network that was created in 1979 by the cable television industry as a public service. It is also completely independent of the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell), and is a well-established channel, of which an appearance on, is certainly qualified as "notable".

Wikipedia's own page on Notability defines it: "Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction. It also refers to the capacity to be such. Persons who are notable due to public responsibility, accomplishments, or, even, mere participation in the celebrity industry are said to have a public profile." Based on the evidence presented here, the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell) is worthy of notice, for being a woman who ran in a state election and garnering significant numbers of votes; She has fame as her actions have been covered by at least three separate and independent sources; she is of a high degree of significance for being a woman who has run in several difficult elections against much better funded opponents; regarding capacity, she certainly has the capacity for further demonstrations of these qualities.

Based on all this, I recommend that this page be retained; I would also recommend that editors follow Wikipedia guidelines in that an attempt should be made to improve an article before suggesting that it be deleted - and regarding notability, that additional sources should be searched for if this is the main concern. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives Joezasada (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for office is not a notability criterion — a person has to win the election and thereby hold office, not just run for it and lose, to clear WP:NPOL, but this makes no claim that she has preexisting notability for any other reason. And the depth of reliable source coverage shown here is not adequate to get her over WP:GNG in lieu, as Joezasada claims above: of the six footnotes, one is a clarifying note rather than a reference; two are her own primary source content about herself, which cannot support notability at all; two (Reason and The Story Exchange) just glancingly namecheck her existence in stories in which she is not the subject; and the C-SPAN reference isn't coverage about her but merely a one-minute video clip of her speaking. These do not represent coverage about her — they represent the kind of purely run of the mill sources that any candidate in any election could always show, not evidence that her candidacy was somehow a special case over and above everybody else's. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Losing candidates for political offices do not meet the notability guidelines under WP:NPOL, and there is not significant, reliable sourced coverage of the subject to pass WP:GNG. And, coverage of the subject's electoral campaign is considered one event, see WP:BLP1E. --Enos733 (talk) 17:46, 14 November 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.