Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esther John (faithless elector)

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esther John (faithless elector)[edit]

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

The first AfD of this article just closed as "no consensus", because it was a multi-article AfD which made it harder to get a clear decision. This person has no claim to notability outside of being a faithless elector in the 2016 presidential election. This is the definition of WP:BLP1E. It was created due to WP:RECENTISM and fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. TimothyJosephWood 19:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect into Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. There is no significant coverage of John as an individual.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything in the article is about her being a faithless elector, which can be covered in our article related to the faithless electors as a group, there is no justification for a specific article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep* (worth 5 regular votes)these 538 individuals are the only ones with any real political power or actual voting rights in our authoritarian, anti-democratic dictatorship (now run by a professional con artist who is owned by the Russians thanks to these clowns.) We must learn more about these tyrants. 70.214.73.124 (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

70.214.73.124 Wikipedia is not a platform for political opinion writing. None of this rationale has to do with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The fact that you don't like that the United States elects its chief executive through a popularly elected Electoral College is not a reason to keep this article. And I find it odd that someone who is opposed to that kind of system would try to make their vote count as five instead of one.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the 'worth five regular votes' thing was pretty funny.Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 03:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the whole exercise by the IP above was meant to make a point, I appreciate the satire.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E clearly applies here. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite the awe some people feel about the President electors, they are in fact pretty normal every day people and in fact there is often an effort to make sure that they are ordinary to avoid someone significant or politically powerful from becoming an elector. For this reason, subject fails notability and is known for a single event. -O.R.^Comms 17:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. Bradv 18:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Faithless electors in the 2016 American Presidential election as per the suggestion at the previous AfD. This is history. BLP1E is not an argument to delete, it is an argument to merge. Same for BIO1E. Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, move without leaving a redirect to Esther John (elector), as the word "faithless", even if common, is a political pejorative. Unscintillating (talk) 00:21, 6 January 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.