Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrissy Houlahan

From 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 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2018#District 6. Redirect per WP:ATD. Note to those arguing to keep; your arguments would have been stronger had you included specific sources which met the WP:GNG standard. Just asserting that it's met doesn't leave the closer much to go on. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissy Houlahan[edit]

Chrissy Houlahan (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)

Per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES, this article should be redirected to the main election article. Our usual consensus is that candidates (as opposed to elected officials) for office need to have significant coverage that is not about campaigns in order to pass our notability standards. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. If she wins her election she'll meet notability standards, but as a candidate, she does not. Marquardtika (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Candidates do not meet inherently meet WP:NPOL. Marquardtika says it best, if she wins, we can reconsider.Bkissin (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another U.S. election season campaign brochure. Unelected candidates without prior notability fail WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:PROMO, WP:NPOL. Happy with a redirect if one is on offer. SportingFlyer talk 01:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG is met, there is enough sources of substance to write a decent article, and she meets notability guidelines regardless of the outcome of the race. A merge with the election might work, but we cannot have undue weight. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unelected candidate. Candidate with an impressive bio, but no pre-election claim to notability and no WP:SIGCOV of her career dating to before she decided to run for office.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat. Candidates are not automatically presumed notable just for being candidates — and since every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, the existence of some campaign coverage does not automatically hand a candidate an instant WP:GNG pass that would exempt them from still having to pass NPOL. The amount of sourcing shown here is nowhere near enough to already make her candidacy a special case over and above everybody else's candidacies, because every candidate could always show this many sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 14 September 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.