Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Denney

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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

(talk) (contribs) 19:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Audrey Denney

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Audrey Denney (edit | 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: only assertion of notability is being an (unsuccessful) candidate for elected office. Kurykh (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
the 2018 CA-39 article could be upmerged into the Gil Cisneros and/or Young Kim article. Elections that result in the notability of the winner seem they should be considered wp:notable events to me, and thus, I'm still firm in my belief that California's 1st congressional district election, 2018 would also be notable, but your comment convinced me to add "Keep" to my opinion below. -- RobLa (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I remain incredibly unconvinced that we need a standalone article about each individual congressional district's individual election results. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I remain incredibly convinced that you are wrong. I would be delighted to have that conversation over at
Talk:United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_California,_2018#Splitting_off_election_articles, where I've detailed my rationale. That is a far more appropriate place to have that conversation. -- RobLa (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
In no way was this candidate's challenge of Doug LaMalfa the equivalent of Denham-Harder or Kim-Cisneros. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this as well. This wasn't a notable race. SportingFlyer talk 00:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL is passed by holding office, not by running for it and losing. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current content and depth/range of sources in this article is somewhat thin, but
    WP:GNG
    . I haven't yet found any larger national papers such as the LA Times, Washington Post, or New York Times covering her campaign in detail - with that, I would have a stronger Keep vote, but I think this is reasonable enough coverage for GNG.
Dreamyshade (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dreamyshade: Those sources all seem to be about the election, rather than the candidate who ran in the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these sources have substantial details about Denney and her work, including her campaign work, as part of describing her campaign. Combined with the existing sources in the article, the information would be sufficient for putting together a reasonably substantial article about her. I also included a few sources with brief mentions (such as the LA Times article) to show that she received some broader notice outside of the regional papers. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:06, 16 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Audrey_Denney&oldid=869460114"