Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Weaver

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. Closing based on an early consensus. Missvain (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Weaver

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

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

Fails

WP:NPOLITICIAN, as she was not elected to office. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win. To qualify for an article without having to win the election and serve in Congress, she would have to either (a) show that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article anyway (which being a member of a local school board is not), or (b) show such an unusually large volume and depth and range of coverage, expanding far beyond just what every candidate in every election can always show, that she would have a credible claim to being much more special than most other candidates in some way that would pass the
ten year test for enduring significance. This article is not passing either of those tests, however. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Outside of losing the election, no notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let it get Published I think that she has enough notability, even search in Google has her information. She deserves a Wikipedia article page for herself. She is a politician, well known and even has stood in elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Maverick (talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standing in elections is not in and of itself what gets a politician into Wikipedia. Winning elections, and thereby serving in a notable political office, is. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines. Less Unless (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines. David notMD (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:12, 26 December 2020 (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.