Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melody Shekari


 * 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. North America1000 19:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Melody Shekari

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Still only a candidate for the primary. Precedent is that she won't be notable even if she wins, but only if she wins the actual election. Personally I've always disagreed with that because sources can generally be found at that point, but there;s been no disagreement that there's certainly no assumed notability until that point. At present, sources are entirely local.  DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi DGG, I'm confused as to why it is a problem that the sources are "entirely local"? So are most references for politicians in this city, including the Mayor's wikipedia page. As far as notability goes, I think Wikipedia's policy is a bit vague on that, but Melody has worked with the City Office of the Mayor which has given her local notability at least. Anyways, please advise as to how this article can be improved so that it is not deleted. Thanks for your time.Aditdamodaran16 (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)aditdamodaran16
 * Chattanooga is a large enough city that its mayor is considered automatically notable, so the localness of the sources doesn't matter in that instance. However, many other political roles — city councillors, non-elected city hall staffers, non-winning candidates in future election primaries, etc. — are not considered automatically notable just because they exist, and thus the referencing for those people does have to expand well beyond the purely local, demonstrating a reason why they could be considered more notable than the norm for their type of role, to make them eligible for inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as there's still nothing at all for any actual convincing notability yet, delete as it may at best simply be too soon. SwisterTwister   talk  03:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete (for now) - all but one of the sources are from her time as a student politician. She would qualify for notability if she wins the election or if she does something notable in her role as a policy advisor but neither of those things is so yet. At the moment she fails criteria 1 and 2 of WP:POLITICIAN, and she doesn't yet meet criterion 3 due to lack of significant coverage. Blythwood (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete As failing WP:NPOL, which states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". I also question whether the nom believes we should have some kind of American exemption to the rule? By stating "personally I've always disagreed with that" with regards to non-notability of unelected candidates. AusLondonder (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete even if she wins the nomination she will not be notable, but being only a candidate for the nomination she is way below the threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing here constitutes an WP:NPOL pass as things stand right now, and the sourcing is nowhere near solid enough to satisfy WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins her seat. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2016 (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.