Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romana Didulo

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. Daniel (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Romana Didulo[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)

BLP and BLP1E concerns. I saw the Vice article when it came out, but don't think that's enough to justify an article on her separately from something on "QAnon in Canada". Other sources are basically repeating the same story. Not sure whether any redirect would work here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Launching an unregistered political party is not an automatic free notability pass in and of itself in the absence of a reason why she could credibly be claimed to pass the ten year test for enduring significance — but the referencing shown here is not adequate to do that, consisting of one Vice article and two unreliable sources that aren't valid support for notability. That just makes her a WP:BLP1E at the present time. Of course, no prejudice against recreation in the future if she ever accrues a more substantive notability claim than this, but nothing here now is the stuff of permanent enduring notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2021 (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.