Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo Alegria

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. The consensus is that it fails WP:NPOL and, separately, it does not meet. WP:BIO. Just Chilling (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Alegria[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)

School district trustees do not generally meet criteria of WP:NPOL. ... discospinster _talk 23:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL as a area 3 Cajon Unified School District trustees. No WP:SIGCOV of independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. School board trustees are not automatically notable per WP:NPOL just because they exist. In rare circumstances, it might be theoretically possible for a school board trustee to clear the bar, if they can be shown as the subject of an unusual volume and range and depth of reliable source coverage that establishes them as much more notable than most other school board trustees — for example, a trustee in California who was somehow so prominent that she was getting coverage in New York would clearly be notable. But the fact that you can technically reference the trustee's vote totals to a primary source table of election results is not, in and of itself, a notability freebie that exempts her from having to have real media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the general notability guideline. Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Bearcat....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:49, 19 June 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.