Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferial Masry (2nd nomination)

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 01:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ferial Masry[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Kept in previous nomination, but that was over eight years ago, Wikipedia standards are now very different, and all coverage relates to her unsuccessful candidacy for elected office. Kurykh (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero notability. Should never have been kept. AusLondonder (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles because candidate per se — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she qualifies for an article for some other reason independent of her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because election. And one piece of nationalized media coverage is not enough to claim WP:GNG in and of itself either — a candidate has to be approaching the media firestorm that swallowed Christine O'Donnell before she can claim "special case" inclusion on the basis that the campaign coverage is showing her to be appreciably more notable than the norm. In theory, there is the potential here for a WP:NAUTHOR pass on the basis of her book, but even that would have to be referenced to reliable source coverage about the book and not just to its own promotional profile on the website of its own publisher. So all in all, there's just not the depth of coverage needed to clear GNG, and nothing in the article is a strong enough notability claim to earn her a presumption of notability in the absence of enough sourcing to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete failed candidates for US house are not notable, failed candidates for state legislatures are no where near being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 19 April 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.