Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Maghnam

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. Michig (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Maghnam[edit]

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

A non-notable political candidate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As of yet the article subject is a candidate, and thus fails WP:POLITICIAN. Her other positions are not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. If she wins her election then we can revisit the issue, but for now WP:TOOSOON holds.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As usual, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet: if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that they already cleared a notability standard for some other reason before they were candidates, then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as politicians. Obviously the article can be recreated on or after election day if she wins, but nothing stated or sourced here entitles her to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero mentions at Google News. Must be an unpopular candidate. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The election campaign hasn't started yet. Coverage of candidates will obviously start occurring once the writ gets dropped, and still won't constitute a WP:GNG pass in and of itself for a candidate who wasn't already notable for other reasons — but its lack of existence as of today isn't evidence of a candidate's popularity or lack thereof, because the campaign kickoff is still a couple of months away. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a candidate is not grounds for notability. If what Bearcat says is true "the election campaign hasn't started yet", it is not even clear she will actually be a candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the fact that the election writ hasn't been dropped yet doesn't mean the parties aren't already selecting their candidates, and one of the primary sources here plainly verifies that she's been selected as a candidate. I was merely responding to the notion that her "popularity" as a candidate was relevant to whether this should be kept or deleted — being a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article regardless of "popularity" or lack thereof, but it's not a question of her status as a candidate being an unverifiable assumption. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2018 (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.