Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Iannarone


 * 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 2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral election. Rough consensus seems to be that she's not quite over the notability bar yet - the minority of "keep" opinions don't identify which sources are supposed to establish notability. Redirection is a sensible alternative to deletion here given that this is a likely search term, and it allows merging content from the history to the extent editors deem it appropriate.  Sandstein  10:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sarah Iannarone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate for mayor of her city, not properly referenced as passing any of our inclusion tests. A person has to hold a notable office, not just run for one, to qualify for an article under WP:NPOL -- to get an article as a candidate, she would have to either (a) demonstrate that she had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article independently of the candidacy (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) show a depth and range and volume of nationalizing media coverage that makes her candidacy much more special than the thousands of other aspiring mayoral candidates across the United States (the Christine O'Donnell test). But this makes no claim that would have gotten her an article independent of the candidacy, and is referenced entirely to primary sources (her own campaign website, raw tables of election results) that are not support for notability at all. No prejudice against recreation on or after November 3 if she wins, since her notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder", but nothing here is legitimate grounds for a Wikipedia article about her to already exist today. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I vote keep per GNG. I live in Portland and hear her name in the news. A search at Google News yields over 2,000 results. Sure, many of these are likely to be passing or brief mentions of her candidacy, but there are also pieces like this which are specifically about her. I think editors just need more time to flesh out her entry. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-winning mayoral candidates do not pass GNG just because local campaign coverage exists. Local campaign coverage always exists in every city that has mayoral elections and media — so if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL, then our established consensus that candidates are not notable just for being candidates would be inherently meaningless, because every candidate in every election could always exempt themselves from NPOL on the grounds of having campaign coverage. So making a candidate notable enough for special treatment over and above other candidates is not a question of showing that campaign coverage exists — it's a question of showing that her campaign coverage has exploded to a degree that would get her candidacy over the ten year test for enduring significance. In other words, the question that has to be answered is whether there's a substantive reason why the world will still need this article to exist in 2030 even if she loses, not just whether she has campaign coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand. AlessandroTiandelli333 has shared more sources below. There's enough to draft a bio (if short) of her career and personal life, IMO. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep If she was only getting coverage for her campaign then her page should be deleted, but she has also got a bit of coverage as a restauranteur, so she passes WP:GNG:    .  AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge > 2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral election, (brief bio & earlier run in 2016 Portland, Oregon mayoral election should be mentioned there). (Otherwise, redirect perR, useful redirect and search term.)Djflem (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC) see below
 * Redirect to 2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral election as a plausible search term. Election pages can be a good place for reliably sourced information about candidates. --Enos733 (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, and therefore a partial merge with some info is preferable.Djflem (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, or merge somewhere as suggested. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge without prejudice. This very much seems like a borderline case, we can certainly dredge up things related to her restaurant, her activism, and her city planning stuff from PSU, but it's clear the main key to her notability will be contingent on becoming mayor (or not). So I think it should either be kept without prejudice to discussing or deleting post-election, or it should be merged without prejudice to being split after the election if it works out. (also: declaring a personal bias (not COI) towards her, discount my thoughts if necessary) tedder (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete mayoral candidates don't clear the threshold when most mayors don't. Owning a bakery etc... also doesn't go beyond a local interest story. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete people who run unsuccessfully for mayor are not notable. We would have to find sourcing far from the Portland media market to show her as notable. Local mayoral candidates are always going to get coverage, but we have absolutely decided not all mayoral candidates are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. If she's best known for losing two mayoral elections, as our article claims, then she's not notable per WP:NPOL. Maybe she has some other claim to notability, and the article can be rewritten to say that she's known for that instead, but I'm not seeing it. Her now-closed cafe might plausibly be notable, but that's still not evidence that she is herself. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As a Portlander who is following this race, and has worked on Wikipedia articles for many local politicians, I'm unsure. It does seem likely that, given enough digging, enough high quality sources exist to clear the WP:GNG threshold. But it will take work to find those sources, and work to synthesize them into a proper article that clearly establishes her significance. I'll watch this discussion, and if there's significant improvement to the article I'll probably vote keep. But as it currently stands, it's not nearly up to our standards. (I did enjoy the sentence: "She's a self-described neighbor of Jarrett Walker, and the two have brainstormed transportation solutions, including after a chance brainstorming session that started on a TriMet bus." With four footnotes, no less!) For a decent example of a Portland mayoral candidate article for a candidate who didn't win, I'd look at Sho Dozono. The contrast is pretty readily apparent. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One point contributing to her notability that could be expanded is her impact on the national discourse around antifa. The Washington Times article is cited, but the Playboy article that started it is not. (It was also mentioned in Willamette Week.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * From "national" coverage mentioned she passes GNG BASIC.
 * Washington, DC:
 * New York City: (interview, with intro with content)
 * Playboy:
 * Bloomberg Media: Djflem (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY and WP:GNG. Playboy, Washington Times, WNYC picking up local OPB interview are sufficient in my view. There's still work to be done to improve the article...but ain't that always how it goes. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Local coverage being reaggregated by other sources through syndication is not a notability booster. For "Playboy, Washington Times, WNYC" to speak to her notability, they would have to have assigned their own writers or journalists to produce new content about her, not just rebroadcast or republish content previously produced by a different media outlet in Portland. And at any rate, candidates aren't automatically special the moment you can show that they've had a one, two or three source blip of nationalized coverage in a WP:BLP1E context — to make a candidate notable enough for permanent inclusion in an international encyclopedia, what needs to be shown is that her candidacy passes the ten year test for enduring significance: that is, her candidacy was so important that even if she loses, people will still remember her name and be looking for information about her in 2030 anyway. Bearcat (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per HEY & RS sources added to article to merge or 2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral electionDjflem (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, appears to pass WP:GNG so WP:NPOL is irrelevant, remember that NPOL only comes into play if a subject doesnt pass GNG... If they pass GNG thats the end of the story, they’re notable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, candidates are not exempted from having to pass NPOL just because some coverage of the election campaign happens to exist — coverage of every election campaign in every place that has elections always exists, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL and NPOL itself would be inherently meaningless. GNG does not just count the number of footnotes present in the article, keeping everybody who has more than two and ignoring all other considerations — GNG most certainly does take into account the context of what the person is getting covered for, and deem some types of coverage (such as campaign coverage of a non-winning candidate for political office who has no other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons outside the election campaign) as not notability-making contexts. And besides, even with new sources added, far too many of them are Twitter tweets and other primary sources that are not support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, I agree that HEY & RS sources helped. I’d also be ok to merge and redirect  to 2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral election. I concur that if WP:GNG is met (and I think it is), then WP:NPOL is not needed.  Montanabw (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete She's only really locally notable for being a mayoral candidate. Even though she's been outspoken recently on antifa, that's mainly a direct result of her candidacy. If she wins the election, we can restore the article. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And that coverage is NOT ROUTINE, as discussed: What is and is not routine coverageDjflem (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That essay only discusses presidential elections, and says nothing whatsoever about elections at the municipal level. Every candidate for mayor in every town and city that has mayors can always show evidence of campaign coverage — so such coverage most certainly is routine if it doesn't establish a credible reason why her candidacy is somehow more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does mention presidential election, under the subheader, "examples". It says nothing about "every" other things mentioned above. As a matter of fact, ROUTINE doesn't either, whereas GNG states: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, which is the case here.Djflem (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete — For now i’d say this is quite too soon, if she does emerge victorious then perharps the article may be refunded to the article creator. Celestina007 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2020 (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.