Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julianne Benzel

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julianne Benzel[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)

This appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. The subject of this biography, a teacher, received some news attention regarding a high school walkout. As an apparent candidate for California's 4th congressional district in 2020, the subject does not yet meet WP:NPOL. As a university lecturer/professor (it's not clear which), the subject does not meet WP:NPROF. Peacock (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Peacock (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to open with saying I totally agree with Benzel's views, feel that RUSD clearly violated the 1st amendment and good pedogogy by suspending a student for calling into question their biased and one sided support of disruptive behaiiors only for favored causes, and would certainly vote for Benzel in the election. This being California they have a jungle primary, and even if it was a traditional party primary, we are about a year away from it, so no one at this point is a nominee, and being a recognized nominee in a congressional race does not make one notable, so we have nothing showingnotability. Not every educator put on administrative leave in violation of the 1st amendment is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wouldn't even qualify as 15 seconds of fame. Fails notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently does not pass WP:NPOL as a candidate. No prejudice against recreation if the subject is victorious in 2020. --Enos733 (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, does not yet meet WP:NPOL. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability all stems from one minor, at least in my view, event. No objections to the article being recreated if she's elected to Congress in 2020. Papaursa (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Although the political candidacy cannot yet save her from BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS, I thought maybe the published memoir could. But I couldn't find any published reviews of it, so notability that way also seems out of reach. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL - you'd be surprised by the number of teachers who are disciplined for what they say. Per past long consensus, educators are not notable, even if they get into the news over an extended time. I'd cite an example, but I've gotten into trouble here for arguing otherwise. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 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.