Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelene Nightingale

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chelene Nightingale[edit]

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

Non-notable starlet-turned-activist; fails WP:BIO, article mostly sourced to her own campaign website Orange Mike | Talk 02:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete She is a candidate for Governor of California, so there is some notability there. However, the rest of the article sounds like it was ripped out from a campaign ad...it seems to be only on her side and not neutral. 7OA chat 03:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No published sources. Minima c (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a candidate who has never held elective office. Despite being a candidate for governor of the most populous US state, references seem scarce. Most of the independent sources presented in the article are either not exactly reliable (IMDB for example) or only mention her in passing. She has a profile with the SPLC, but that's not a newspiece. I don't know much about the Independent Political Report, which did a short story on her being endorsed by G. Edward Griffin, but the fact that their email address is @gmail.com leads me to suspect they're not a very major news organization. Google and GNews searches turn up articles only mentioning her in passing, her campaign website, candidate profiles, social networking sites, blogs, etc. but no in-depth coverage in reliable sources needed to pass WP:BIO. PDCook (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really have nothing to add to PDCook's thorough analysis. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup, the article definitely sounds like a POV politicial ad promoting a candidate. Has she done newsworthy before deciding to run for office? If so, perhaps the article tone could be addressed. If not, and failing WP:Politician, the current scant coverage [1] all seems to be WP:BLP1E. If she actually wins, then the article can be returned and expanded. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pr PDCook Obviously self-promotion. Evalpor (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Wikipedia is not the news. --Ronbo76 (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. She has not even won the nomination of her party yet, she is merely one of the candidates in the primary. The only WP:RS source given is a story in the San Diego Union-Tribune which mentions, in passing, that she was one of the speakers at an event. There is also a mention of her here. Other than that, nothing. So the answer to whether she has done anything newsworthy is "no". --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nom. While it is entirely possible that this person may attain notability in the future, there is still a ways to go and it hasn't been met yet. RFerreira (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point, not really notable. If she attains it in the future, then we can always re-create the article. JPetersen (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Piling-on re pulchritudinous-effected political-playtime publicity-mongering. Plutonium27 (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2010 (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.