Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Stella

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. czar 02:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Stella[edit]

[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:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Candidacy in an election or primary is not sufficient, and neither is the press comment surrounding QAnon/shoplifting by itself (per WP:1E etc). Endymion.12 (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Endymion.12 (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I, as the creator of the article feel that she is worthy of being on Wikipedia due to the coverage she has received in multiple notable, reputable channels of media. She is a candidate for an important political position, that of the representation of Minnesota's 5th congressional district, which has been made more so newsworthy by the rise of Ilhan Omar. While I recognize that Stella's public prominence may have flash-in-the-pan qualities, I believe based on her political aspirations and media treatment render her notable, and that the coverage and public interest in her is likely to continue. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is unfortunate, but appears increasingly that the consensus disagrees with my analysis on the page. I feel it was worth a shot to create the page, because Wikipedia can always use with more BLPs of women, but I also anticipate that I did not study WP:NPOL well enough. As well, this is only my second created political article, and I have no present plans on continuing to make further political articles. (I specialize in music-related fare here). I am aware, at least, that, say, a mayor of a small, anonymous rural town would not make the cut on Wikipedia, unless if they have another reason to be Wiki-notable. Therefore, I'm okay with whatever decision comes about. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate, not enough non-campaign coverage to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not won — people need to win the election and thereby hold office to pass WP:NPOL, and otherwise they have to already have had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article on those other grounds anyway. The coverage shown is not enough to get her over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL, either — it just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a person who has passed the ten year test for enduring significance. It is not our job to keep an article about every single person who happens to show up in the current news cycle — we're writing the long view of history here, not the five-minute view of current newsiness, so GNG does not just count up the footnotes and keep anything that surpasses a certain arbitrary number, but rather it also tests for the context of what the person is getting coverage for. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November 2020 if she wins, but nothing here adds up to a reason why she would already qualify to keep an article today. Also, sourcing anything to Facebook or Twitter is always a hard no. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota - a fairly conventional example of a candidate not meeting NPOL, we get hoards each year. I don't know whether if there had been piles of coverage specifically on the QAnon aspect that might have acted as a route for, but at this point I'm not inclined to view it as different to a candidate getting lots of coverage for a firm pro/anti abortion stance, despite its oddness. I would ask the other !voters to go for redirect to her election, as is logical. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the recreation of a redirect to the election article afterward — but I still believe that the article should be deleted first and then have a redirect created from the redlink, because I see no value in retaining the article's edit history behind a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind either way, but could be helpful if she does win the election. However, a provisional REFUND for post 2020 would also serve. I don't mind which it's a straight redirect or D&R. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second deleting first, although I wouldn't mind waiting until the Republican Primary to see if Stella maintains her campaign first before creating a redirect. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates to congress are not notable. Wikipedia is not a place for election brochures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her alleged fringe beliefs and alleged shoplifting add human interest to what would otherwise be a routine failure of WP:NPOL but I don't think they pass WP:FRINGE and WP:CRIMINAL respectively. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a candidate, fails WP:NPOL. At this point, a redirect feels premature as it is unclear whether the subject will even be the Republican Party nominee for the position in 2020. --Enos733 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability just not there for any SNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment As a non-American, the BLP is fascinating. It's hard for me to believe that this is not some type of performance art. To this extent there may be a rationale that could be made for GNG based on public impact, it certainly makes for an interesting article. --Fæ (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ It is somewhat performance art, but as an American who used to work in politics I can tell you that candidates such as Stella are actually rather common, especially in the primary stage or are long shots due to electoral demographics. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the impact were significant enough, I would draw a parallel with the fact that Wikipedia does host articles for Screaming Lord Sutch and Catmando (not a person!) as articles like this do benefit the encyclopaedia. I think there's actually wiggle room, if as you mention, Stella is just extraordinary enough to rise above other fringe long shots and has established some long term notability. --Fæ (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

95 per cent of all American politics is (bad) performance art now, unfortunately. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an unelected political candidate who has not held any political office yet, and has not even won the party primary. Too early for either an article or a redirect. Nsk92 (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2019 (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.