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.
A defeated minor party candidate for office who fails
WP:NPOL and has no other credible claim to significance
AusLondonder (
talk) 07:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep passes
WP:BASIC. Rios has received significant coverage in multiple published sources.--
TM 12:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)reply
That coverage is routine coverage to be expected of a candidate for office. Why should the criteria at
WP:NPOL not apply?
WP:ROUTINE regards events, not biographies, and as such is not applicable in this case. Per
WP:BASIC, "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below", which should answer your question regarding the applicability of NPOL.--
TM 14:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)reply
ROUTINE is a question of the context in which the coverage is being given, not a question of what class of topic the article represents. An election campaign is an event — so coverage of a person in the context of an election campaign is ROUTINE, because its context is one in which such coverage is simply expected to exist for all candidates regardless of their enduring notability or lack thereof.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Does not meet basic criteria. In almost no cases are candidates for office notable. Routine applies here, because there is routine coverage of election candidates, but this does not provide good ground for making articles on people. The coverage of Rios does not reach beyond her failed campaigns.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Candidates for office are not notable just for being candidates — to qualify for inclusion, she would need to either (a) be shown and properly sourced as having already had preexisting notability for some other reason besides the fact of being a candidate, or (b) be shown and properly sourced as having garnered far more than the merely expected level of media coverage that every candidate for any office could always show.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Ohio gubernatorial election, 2014. The campaign is a notable event and there is some coverage of the fact the subject qualified for the general election as a write-in candidate. Otherwise delete per nom and
Bearcat. --
Enos733 (
talk) 16:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Ohio gubernatorial election, 2014. Insufficient notability to justify stand-alone article, Anita and Rios are fairly common names, but assing keywords didn't help.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 22:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)reply
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.