Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teressa Raiford

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. There is a clear consensus that this content should be in Wikipedia somewhere (whether kept or merged), and the majority of support is for keeping, with possible merge targets split between two articles (often a sign that the subject has multiple potential bases of notability). BD2412 T 03:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teressa Raiford[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)

Inadequately referenced article about a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office at the local level and founder of a local organization. As always, neither of these are "inherent" notability freebies -- a mayoral candidate has to win the election, not just run in it, to secure notability from a mayoral election per se, and founders of local organizations need to show a lot more coverage than just technical verification that they exist before they're nationally notable for that. But three of the four sources here are just routine campaign coverage in small weekly hyperlocals in her own local media market, which is not enough coverage to get a person over WP:GNG just for being a non-winning candidate for municipal office in and of itself, and the fourth is the "about us" profile on the directly affiliated organization's own self-published website about itself, which is a primary source that does not count as support for notability at all. Literally nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more, in number and depth and geographic range, reliable source coverage in major media than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge > 2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral election.21:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Micky (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just added some more to her page and that's just scratching the surface plenty of stuff available on Google which makes her notable. Unfortunately I've run out of time. User:Davidstewartharvey

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Don't Shoot Portland. She's notable as an activist, not as a political candidate. A quick Google search shows that the organization is notable: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. pburka (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of news coverage featuring her, that should make it practical to expand the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge her activism into Don't Shoot Portland, which needs to be expanded and where most of her activism has taken place. She's not a notable candidate, this is mostly written to be an article about a candidate, and most of the coverage I can find of her is local coverage about her being a candidate. Based on my search, her activism is almost all in the context of Don't Shoot Portland, as evidenced by the sources provided above, so I think a merge and redirect is best per WP:NOTINHERITED. If I've missed sources on her activism I'm happy to reconsider. SportingFlyer T·C 22:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definately notable, meets wp.gng as there is enough coverage. It does not matter if she is a failed political candidate or an activist. Don't Shoot would not exist if she had not founded it, and the political career is linked with her activism. Just looks like anti blm to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.239.150 (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter, as we only keep failed candidates unless they're otherwise notable or if their campaign was especially noteworthy. She could be otherwise notable, but the coverage I found directly relates to the organisation she founded, that's why I suggested a merge instead of an outright delete. SportingFlyer T·C 17:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failed candidates may not be normally accepted, but these are the addition to her being an activist and give back story to someone who active. Don't shoot portland is not mentioned without comments from Railford, there is no evidence on their page or the net there anything more than a one person organisation. Also the criminal conviction that was quashed and subsequent failed claim case show notability. Merger would mean we would lose this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.239.150 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually say your argument that she's closely tied to Don't Shoot Portland is actually a strong merge argument. SportingFlyer T·C 19:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentJust to say that I should have mention WP:Basic in my Keep vote.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2020 (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.