- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Alejandra Campoverdi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. Being a White House aide and an unsuccessful candidate for elected office is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Kurykh ( talk) 19:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
While I don't think this individual should be in an encyclopedia from a common sense perspective (agree with Kurykh in that regard), the articles seems to me to meet the Notability standard. WP:BASIC 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." The article includes multiple news articles such as Washington Post and LA Times (reliable and intellectually independent of each other) that are about and focused on the subject (significant coverage). If it came to a vote I would vote to keep it up. -- Michael Powerhouse ( talk) 19:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @ Michael Powerhouse: The whole point of AfD discussions is to vote, and provide reasoning. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I think the depth of coverage (Glamour, WaPo, LA Times) meets WP:GNG. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Strong delete The coverage of Campoverdi is routine and related to her failed run for congress. Failed candidates get coverage all the time, but not at the level that justifies keeping articles on them. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- All coverage that's specifically in an election campaign context falls under WP:ROUTINE, because every candidate for any political office could always show that many pieces of media coverage. For a person to be considered notable because campaign coverage in and of itself, that coverage has to blow up into something approaching the shitstorm that hit Christine O'Donnell — five pieces of "candidate once posed for cheesecake photos" coverage simply doesn't meet that standard, especially if you have to rely on People and The Huffington Post just to get to five. Bearcat ( talk) 17:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot show and reliably source that she was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before running as a candidate, then she has to win the election to get a Wikipedia article because election — and the volume of media coverage being shown is not enough to make her the rare Christine O'Donnell exception where the candidacy coverage turned into a shitstorm that made her an international household name that virtually everybody still instantly recognizes almost ten years later. Bearcat ( talk) 17:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The coverage on Alejandra Campoverdi is not limited to her run for office. She is also a health care advocate, a former White House staffer, and a former media executive. Journalists have written about the resistance to her campaign based on what is perceived as sexism (her Maxim photo shoot), and the motivation for her run (BRCA2 gene). If she were notable merely for her campaign there would not be lengthy articles in the
Washington Post ,
Glamour,
Huffington Post,
Cosmopolitan , and significant inclusion in an article from
the New York Times Sunday Magazine Not included as refs but but could have been:
Vox,
People,
Bust,
New York Post . There is more, but I'm not going to belabor the point. This isn't routine coverage.
JSFarman (
talk) 14:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment All of but one of your links are related to her failed election campaign: that is classic
WP:NPOL (
WP:BLP1E might also be a factor). Being a healthcare advocate, a former White House staffer, and a former media executive do not confer notability in and of themselves, not even in the aggregate. Just because the links are to significant bios about the candidacy doesn't make her notable; otherwise, candidates in many competitive races would be automatically notable simply due to the amount of coverage, which is not the case. --
Kurykh (
talk) 18:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it's true to say this is classic NPOL: for a first round (of two) Congressional primary fielding 23 candidates (
source), I'd expect to see only local coverage, and not even necessarily individual profiles of each of them. It's quite unusual for such a candidate to receive multiple in-depth profiles from national outlets.
Innisfree987 (
talk) 16:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I've added references unrelated to her campaign. Fox News ( Latinas for Change: Alejandra Campoverdi's roots have helped her reinvent the media landscape) and the Arizona Daily Star (via Tuscon.com), which is bylined Washington Post ( Univision, ABC seek hip Latino viewers). There are now five references which establish her notability outside of her congressional run (New York Times, HuffPo, Latino, Washington Post (via Tuscon.com) and Fox News. JSFarman ( talk) 17:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it's true to say this is classic NPOL: for a first round (of two) Congressional primary fielding 23 candidates (
source), I'd expect to see only local coverage, and not even necessarily individual profiles of each of them. It's quite unusual for such a candidate to receive multiple in-depth profiles from national outlets.
Innisfree987 (
talk) 16:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment All of but one of your links are related to her failed election campaign: that is classic
WP:NPOL (
WP:BLP1E might also be a factor). Being a healthcare advocate, a former White House staffer, and a former media executive do not confer notability in and of themselves, not even in the aggregate. Just because the links are to significant bios about the candidacy doesn't make her notable; otherwise, candidates in many competitive races would be automatically notable simply due to the amount of coverage, which is not the case. --
Kurykh (
talk) 18:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Subject passes general notability guidelines. Missvain ( talk) 14:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - she was a former Obama White House official (staff) and "a groundbreaking first-ever deputy director of Hispanic media at the White House" to quote the WaPo article linked by JSFarman above. Some of the MSM coverage about her dates back to 2010 so it's not just about her being a candidate now. Atsme 📞 📧 15:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The subject was profiled in the New York Times Magazine and LatinoMagazine prior to the campaign for Congress. While those features, in and of themselves, would not meet a WP:GNG pass, with failed candidates for public office, the test for notability should include the totality of circumstance. And while for most failed candidates, the campaign coverage is routine and the community has considered individuals running in a campaign within the context of WP:BLP1E (i.e. the election contest is notable, but the individuals are notable only in the contest of the election), in this circumstance, there is a) prior coverage of the subject in national newspapers, and b) there is national news coverage of the subject as a candidate. -- Enos733 ( talk) 17:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep meets GNG. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 17:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as has been repeatedly pointed out, GNG requires significant coverage over time, which she clearly meets. Alternative guidelines such as NPOL which limit notability to a one-dimentional sphere are secondary to GNG and serve very little purpose in evaluating people with multi-faceted lives. Having coverage as a model, White House staff, health advocate and media executive prior to her electoral bid is sufficient to verify that that single event is not the focal point of her notability. SusunW ( talk) 18:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - has received considerable coverage, over a span of time, for multiple facts of her life, not only her failed campaign. Clearly passes GNG. Ladyof Shalott 00:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep -- this is not merely a political candidate, but also meets GNG for a multitude of other reasons. She has extensive coverage in multiple third-party sources, clearly meets GNG. Montanabw (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Has received wide coverage as a White House aide.-- Ipigott ( talk) 15:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Per User:Ipigott: there's been enough non-campaign coverage that she passes the threshold, in my opinion. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 17:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep WP:GNG met. Hmlarson ( talk) 19:11, 27 April 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.