Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liuba Grechen Shirley


 * 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 United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2018.  Sandstein  18:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Liuba Grechen Shirley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. No claim to fame other than being a candidate in an election. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete As an unsuccessful candidate for office, she doesn't get an automatic pass under WP:NPOL. While there is some coverage in reliable sources, it is all in the context of her (ultimately losing) bid for office, and she doesn't appear to otherwise be notable. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2018. Subject fails WP:NPOL as unsuccessful candidate for office. Bkissin (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won — making a candidate notable enough for inclusion requires (a) that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article anyway (i.e. Cynthia Nixon has an article even though she failed to unseat Andrew Cuomo, because she was already notable as an actress), or (b) she can be referenced to such an explosive degree of "far more than every other candidate is also getting" coverage that her candidacy can credibly be claimed as a special case (i.e. Christine O'Donnell, who got so bloody much nationalized and internationalized coverage that her article is actually twice as long as, and cites three times as many distinct sources as, the article about the actual incumbent senator she lost to does.) But neither of those conditions are demonstrated here at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Unremarkable losing political candidate; coverage is confined to her candidacy. Marquardtika (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Remarkable, as Shirley was the first congressional candidate to petition for and receive from the US Federal Election Commission (FEC) approval to spend a portion of campaign funds on workday childcare during the campaign to allow her to devote her full-time attention to campaigning. C(u)w(t)C(c) 02:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not just reflexively keep every candidate who can merely claim to have been the first person ever to do a not inherently notable thing. To claim notability on those grounds, she would have to have received a WP:GNG-passing volume of coverage about that achievement to establish its historic noteworthiness. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete this is even more poorly sourced than normal for these types of articles. SportingFlyer  talk  10:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Selective Merge to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2018. There only seems to be the one claim to notability that would not apply to any congressional candidate, and that was being allowed to use her campaign funds for childcare payments. But that received enough coverage that I recognised her name, though I couldn't have named the district, or even the state, she was standing in. And it is almost certainly enough to get her repeated passing mentions in books and media articles on American elections for the next few decades. Notable enough for an article? Probably not. Notable enough for a sentence in a relevant and otherwise notable article? Yes. PWilkinson (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2018. A redirect is an appropriate and usual outcome for losing candidates for a federal election. I continue to believe that these election articles have room for expansion about the race and the candidates. --Enos733 (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination as subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. There will almost always be more losers than winners in a political election. Simply by having contested one, a person is not notable, unless multiple independent sources indicate the opposite - which, in this case, they do not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -The Gnome (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2018 (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.