Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Burnes

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Burnes[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)

I don't see significant, in-depth coverage in secondary sources, outside ordinary levels of campaign coverage, which doesn't satisfy WP:NPOL. (Burnes is one of about a dozen candidates in a primary election in Colorado for U.S. Senate.) Neutrality^talk 13:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet non-winning candidates in political party primaries — to pass WP:NPOL, she will have to win the general election next November, and to get an article any earlier than that it would be necessary to demonstrate that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article on those grounds anyway. But there's literally nothing here that clears that bar at all: this is written like the bog-standard campaign brochure that even NPOL-passing officeholders are still not allowed to have, not like a properly written encyclopedia article, and it's referenced far too heavily to primary sources that are not support for notability and not nearly enough to the reliable kind. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NPOL. Bondegezou (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are other criteria in play than NPOL, but her citation record is not strong enough for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems no other claim to academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NPOL. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 8 July 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.