Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurie Cardoza-Moore

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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Cardoza-Moore

Laurie Cardoza-Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails

talk) 03:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Her notability is not predicated on her unsuccessful bid for election. Its mainly about her political activism prior to that, and resulting controversies surrounding her political appointments (combined with her other activities such as politics and film). There are numerous articles about her in newspapers, much more than the few I included in the article. I'll be adding more as a result. Thismess (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because she got a bill passed in the Tennessee state legislature, produced several non-notable films, founded a counter-jihad group, and unsuccessfully ran for office does not make her notable. She is also not notable just because her appointment to a certain commission was controversial. I do believe she fails
talk) 02:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, what matters is that the media thinks she is notable, which they clearly do. Thismess (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, nobody said she is primarily notable for her film productions (although it is part of her activism). Thismess (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep looking at the references, I think this article passes
    WP:GNG. I looked through the references which seem to establish notability. I have looked for further referencing from RS but the article does seem to be limited (for now) to the references already used. Knitsey (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear more opinions on this article. Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The article satisfies
    WP:FART, but that’s separate from the deletion nomination citing notability. ZsinjTalk 01:29, 5 October 2023 (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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.