Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidi Holan

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Holan[edit]

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

Delete. Another campaign brochure for an as yet unelected candidate in a forthcoming election. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of her candidacy, then she does not become eligible for a Wikipedia article until she wins the election. But nothing here demonstrates any preexisting notability for some other reason; it's based entirely on WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election campaign itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage found. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am beginning to wonder if someone was trying to make a point about the number of women running as Republicans for seats in the Illinois legislature. This may be worth writing a blog or news article on, which depending on where it is published might be worth creating an article at some point like Susan B. Anthony's List and the 2016 campaign for the Illinois House of Representatives, but unless these individuals win it is not worth having articles on these people, and unless there is lots of coverage under that potential title, even one article even in the Chicago Tribune or New York Times would not overcome the fact that Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the creator's point was specifically about women running as Republicans per se — he also created some articles about men, and at least one about a Democrat as well. Rather, his point seems to be that we should accept and keep articles about candidates because it can bias the election results if we don't — especially given that his recent edit history also seems to include editing an already-closed AFD discussion on a candidate to trash the deletion rationales with, in one of the most impressive feats of "completely missing the point" I've seen on Wikipedia this decade, the counterargument that John Kerry wasn't elected to his current position either. (Never mind that (a) elected or appointed, he's still a holder of a notable office and not just a candidate for one, and (b) he did hold elected office as a lieutenant governor and US Senator for 30 years before being appointed SoS. So, yeah, not so analogous.) Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2016 (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.