Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sema Hernandez

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sema Hernandez[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:NPOL, politician running for multiple elections but so far failing to win. Fram (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This politician is a person of whom absolutely qualifies to be a person of whom should be included in Wikipedia. There's quite a bit of content on them, far exceeding the bare minimum for notability. Just because someone lost an election doesn't mean that they aren't notable; she certainly is. SuperChris (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it's certainly possible for a person who runs as a political candidate but loses to still be notable anyway, this article isn't showing that at all. There are two ways that condition can be attained: either (a) she was already notable for other reasons that would have gotten her an article anyway (e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) her campaign has received such an unusual explosion of media coverage, far beyond the scope of what every candidate in every election always gets, that she has a credible claim to being special (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). But this article demonstrates neither of those things: it makes no claim of preexisting notability for other reasons, but is just the completely routine campaign brochure (complete with a "her opinions on the issues" section) that could be written about absolutely any candidate, and its references are not reliable sources for the purposes of anointing her candidacy as special — it's referenced almost entirely to primary sources and Reddit threads and Twitter tweets and YouTube videos that are not evidence of notability, and the only three references that actually count as reliable sources are not substantively about her, but all just glancingly namecheck her existence within coverage of other people. This is not how you make an as yet unelected political candidate special enough to clear the notability bar despite not passing WP:NPOL — if she wins the seat in 2020, then she'll obviously get an article at that time, but neither the substance nor the sourcing on offer here are enough to already get her over the bar today. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Bearcat notes there aren't enough reliable sources to establish notability and her campaign itself does not mean that she qualifies as notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:NPOL. An obviousy case of a promotional article.Avidohioan (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a place for candidates to post their campaign literature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 20 March 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.