Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyla June Johnston


 * 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, but I am moving this to Draft:Lyla June Johnston to allow RebeccaGreen the opportunity to engage in proposed improvements. BD2412 T 03:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Lyla June Johnston

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NPOL & WP:POLITICIAN & WP:GNG. Johnston is a political candidate and does not hold any other public office. Lefcentreright Talk  (plz ping) 19:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 19:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 19:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 19:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions.  Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 19:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Wikipedia is not a platform for free posting of campaign brouchers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - per rationale given by Johnpacklambert + she clearly fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 15:14 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Subject of the article completely fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox.  NNADI GOOD LUCK  ( Talk &#124; Contribs ) 19:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in political party primaries for offices they have not already held — the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. And no, the existence of a smattering of local coverage in the campaign context is not an automatic GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, either, because every candidate in every election can always show a bit of local coverage — so a political candidate is not notable for that unless and until her coverage nationalizes to such a degree that her candidacy can be credibly claimed as much more special than everybody else's candidacies, which is not what the sources here are showing. And the only other way a candidate gets into Wikipedia is if it can be demonstrated that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article anyway, and this article isn't showing that either. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR platform to publicize the campaigns of aspiring politicians — we consider the enduring notability of our article topics, not just their momentary newsiness, and being a candidate in a primary does not pass the ten year test in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is a free PR platform for those who have been elected to certain offices, judging from the countless "biographies" out there completely lacking in any biographical substance whatsoever and the regulars who push content in such a direction. If you spend all your time babbling away in deletion discussions, you won't have any time left to see that for yourself.  I find it hilarious that they included a photo while at the same time carefully avoided any mention of her ethnicity, which I would believe to be the first question one would ask upon viewing that photo. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  00:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles are not supposed to amount to campaign brochers. Elected canddiates will have broader sources so we do not have to be reduced to them. I have created hundreds of articles on Wikipedia, so do not accuse me of only seeking to delete articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that not all of our articles about elected politicians are of best-practices quality yet is not, in and of itself, a reason to exempt other people from having to satisfy our notability standards. Believe me, I'm fully aware that we have lots of badly written and badly sourced articles, even about people who do otherwise meet our notability standards — I'm not as naive as you seem to think, trust me — but that's a reason to fix those articles, not a reason to exempt other people from actually having to pass a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I am editing the article and adding some sources, including an article from 2005 about her as a slam poet. It is problematic that this has been created because she is a political candidate, but she has been in the public eye for much longer than that. If this article doesn't get deleted first, I will continue editing it and assess whether she has enough SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG, aside from her candidacy. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2019 (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.