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. The community has generally set a rather high bar for persons whose principle or only claim to WP:N is being a candidate for public office. Consensus here reflects this. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Shireen Ghorbani (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NPOL. We don't usually include candidates for office unless they are notable for another reason, or if their is unusually wide coverage of their candidacy. Neither appears to be the case here. –  Joe ( talk) 20:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 20:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 20:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 20:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 20:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet unselected candidates in future political party primaries — even winning the primary and going into the general election as the Democratic candidate in this house district still wouldn't make her eligible for a Wikipedia article in and of itself. To earn an article now, rather, she would have to be demonstrated and properly sourced as having already been eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before she was a candidate for anything. But that's not what this article or this sourcing actually show. No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat, but nothing here entitles her to already have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat ( talk) 20:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete- not only is she just a candidate, she hasn't even gotten her party's nomination yet.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 03:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Per WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I don't see anything that prevents a candidate from being covered in an article, nor do they have to be notable *before* becoming a candidate. Shireen is part of a major movement this election cycle in which first-time candidates, especially women, are running for national level office. She has been covered in multiple independent sources for this, including as part of Time Magazine's coverage of this movement. The above delete recommendations do not seem to take into account Wikipedia's own guidelines. I do have a vested interest in this article being published and believe that the article is within the guidelines as stated. Sfc2018 ( talk) 17:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: Sfc2018 has a COI in relation to this article. See User talk:Sfc2018#Conflict of interest. –  Joe ( talk) 20:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Every candidate in any election always gets some degree of media coverage, so simply being able to show that some media coverage exists is not proof in and of itself that one particular candidate is necessarily a special case over and above most other candidates. The rule for making a candidate notable enough to have a Wikipedia article is normally that she has to have preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy — there can be rare exceptions in extremely rare cases on the order of Christine O'Donnell, who exploded to such a large volume of nationalized and internationalized coverage that her article is actually longer and cites more distinct footnotes than the article about the guy she lost to does. But simply showing three or four pieces of media coverage in her own district's local media is not what makes a candidate notable, because no candidate ever fails to have that. And just having her photo chosen by national media for inclusion in an illustration, when the accompanying text content doesn't single her out for anything more than a brief glancing mention, is not a notability claim that lifts a candidate above the norm, either. Furthermore, the majority of the footnotes here are primary sources that cannot support notability at all, such as "staff" profiles and pieces of her own writing and the routine paid inclusion death notice of her mother — the few sources here that are reliable and independent and about her for the purposes of establishing that she would pass a Wikipedia notability criterion are not enough, in either number or geographic range, to make her a special case over and above most other candidates. Bearcat ( talk) 15:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete The coverage beyond what we would expect normally for candidates to public office, is not really about her, it is about an alleged large scale phenomenon, and shows her as one of many people said to represent this phenomenon. Even if she gets her party nomination that would not make her default notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:56, 16 March 2018 (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.