Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Rice Allen

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 and redirect to Nelson Allen. Note that Nelson Allen has its own set of problems, being unsourced for nearly a decade. bd2412 T 00:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Rice Allen[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 since she is a non-winning candidate. Does not gain any notability from being married to a state senator either. (WP:NOTINHERETED) Rusf10 (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree, doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 03:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree she doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN as a failed candidate in one election. You would expect coverage of the election and her candidature, indeed this coverage exists but it is just routine political coverage. There's no hint anywhere she's been elected to public office, or for that matter made a major contribution to any other field. Sionk (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the entry of Nelson Allen, where Carol Rice Allen is justifiably mentioned as a lifelong spouse, including her run for the State Senate. gidonb (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People don't get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win, but this doesn't demonstrate or reliably source any particular basis for notability on other grounds — and it's written much more like a campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article, to boot. The only source cited at all is a raw table of election results on the website of the county clerk, which is not a notability-supporting source. No objection to redirecting her to her husband afterward, if desired, but that should be done from the redlink after deleting the bio rather than leaving the edit history present behind the redirect. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It all works out since I have no objection to deletion as long as Carol Rice Allen is redirected. gidonb (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I just started an article on the clearly notable Charlie Borders. Having been around Wikipedia and followed developments as closely as I have, I say that we have an article on Allen and didnt on Borders until very recently shows that Wikipedia has not overcome its coastal, pro-Democrat inclusion biases. However with the mention of Ashland, Kentucky, this appears to be part of an over the top localized campaign to create articles on anyone ever who had an association with Ashland Kentucky. Being a candidate even for the US house is not a sign of notability, for the state legislature not even close. A few extremely rare cases of US house candidates becoming notable for such exist. I doubt there is anyone ever who is notable on the strength of their being a candidate for a state legislature, and that is the only thing even remotely close to making Allen notable. I think we would have a much better reason to add mention that Jason Live is the husband of Mia Love to the Jason Love page, at least one newspaper has seen fit to write a whole article on Mr. Love, than for having this article. I am refraining from doing so at this point. When Love becomes a US senator I will reconsider my refraining, but for now I will refrain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, Wikipedia does not have any sort of "pro-Democrat inclusion bias". It's true that the current glut of unelected candidate articles that we have to delete skews Democratic — but that's only because the Republicans are in power right now, so more of the incumbents who already have articles are Republicans and more of the unelected challengers who want them are Democrats. The last time the Democrats had control of Congress, the balance skewed the other way and the unelected candidate articles trended more Republican. Wikipedia has no institutional bias toward or against either political party — the political realities of the day may tilt the balances one way or the other, but that has more to do with the simple math of which party happens to have more incumbents and which party happens to have more as yet unelected challengers than it does with any active bias on Wikipedia's part. (For another example of why this is true, consider also that in both Illinois and California, where the state legislatures are Democratic-controlled, the unelected state legislature candidate articles trend much more strongly Republican — again, simply because there are more unelected Republican candidates for people to try to push into Wikipedia than there are unelected Democratic candidates.) Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2018 (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.