Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Rios

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 Ohio gubernatorial election, 2014. Consensus was clearly to either delete or redirect. Redirects are cheap. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Rios[edit]

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

A defeated minor party candidate for office who fails WP:NPOL and has no other credible claim to significance AusLondonder (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BASIC. Rios has received significant coverage in multiple published sources.--TM 12:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That coverage is routine coverage to be expected of a candidate for office. Why should the criteria at WP:NPOL not apply?

WP:ROUTINE regards events, not biographies, and as such is not applicable in this case. Per WP:BASIC, "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below", which should answer your question regarding the applicability of NPOL.--TM 14:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ROUTINE is a question of the context in which the coverage is being given, not a question of what class of topic the article represents. An election campaign is an event — so coverage of a person in the context of an election campaign is ROUTINE, because its context is one in which such coverage is simply expected to exist for all candidates regardless of their enduring notability or lack thereof. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet basic criteria. In almost no cases are candidates for office notable. Routine applies here, because there is routine coverage of election candidates, but this does not provide good ground for making articles on people. The coverage of Rios does not reach beyond her failed campaigns.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidates for office are not notable just for being candidates — to qualify for inclusion, she would need to either (a) be shown and properly sourced as having already had preexisting notability for some other reason besides the fact of being a candidate, or (b) be shown and properly sourced as having garnered far more than the merely expected level of media coverage that every candidate for any office could always show. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ohio gubernatorial election, 2014. The campaign is a notable event and there is some coverage of the fact the subject qualified for the general election as a write-in candidate. Otherwise delete per nom and Bearcat. --Enos733 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 06:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ohio gubernatorial election, 2014. Insufficient notability to justify stand-alone article, Anita and Rios are fairly common names, but assing keywords didn't help.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2017 (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.