1331:. I came by to consider closing the discussion, but I felt strongly enough about this that I would rather comment instead. The coverage cited in the article and linked here is clearly enough to pass GNG. Other guidelines like NPOL are alternative lower bars, and should not be applied in a way that invalidates the presumption of notability earned by passing GNG. To put it another way, just because she's running for an office and hasn't yet been elected doesn't mean that she can't still be notable. Other policy concerns, like BLP1E, should of course be considered, but I don't believe they apply in this case. Her claim to notability is not just her candidacy or her pardon, but the sum total of these factors. Sufficient coverage exists to write an article that complies with WP:V and WP:BLP, and that is
903:
not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal; is not a crystal ball making prediecations; is not a newspaper article; is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which specific part from the guideline NOT is being referred to? And how it trumps GNG? (the part about censorship might come into play here, which deletion would speak to.) Is there a special place or RS one can go to check to see how this article "created exclusively to support the campaign" or is that just conjecture?
1151:. Did she testify about the bill? Did she lead an organization dedicated to it? No. She is also involved in Donald Trump's black outreach efforts, but she is only described as "one of Trump's black supporters," not an organizational leader. By that logic every Black Republican precinct captain would be eligible for a Knowledge article. Does her presidential pardon? No and I think that's fairly established receipt of a pardon does not make one notable.--
465:. There is clearly enough material to write a useful article about more than just the campaign. I do not agree with the higher standard for politician notability (and keep in mind NPOL is only a guideline, not a policy), and there is substantial coverage in national sources, not just local sources. This includes an in depth profile in the
1095:). She fails the three tests which BLP1E lays out: reliable sources only cover her in the context of one event, she is otherwise likely to remain a low profile individual (losing an election does not have long term significance), and the event is not nearly significant enough in itself to overcome this.
902:
Since this article is not a dictionary entry; is not a publication of original thought: is not a soapbox or means of promotion, not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site; is not a directory listing; is
365:
a notable office, not just running for one. But this makes no credible claim that she has preexisting notability that would have gotten her into
Knowledge independently of the candidacy, and is not referenced to anything like the sheer explosion of media coverage it would take to make her candidacy
610:
We don't keep articles for people who are only notable for being candidates. The keep !votes which mention sources exist don't actually mention all of those sources are directly tied to her candidacy - she was not notable for being pardoned, as she was merely listed in a couple articles for having
429:
Stanton-King is not getting more references than any other candidate for US house. If she were to pass notability than every US house candidate would, and we have decided that they all do not. If
Stanton-King is elected she will be notable, until that happens either in this election or some future
524:
I don't get what you guys are talking about. The first par of NPOL is about people who don't meet the GNG but are still considered notable, and the rest says if you meet the GNG then you're notable. So it's a lower bar than the GNG. In this case she meets the GNG, so what am I missing here?
941:, then the article shouldn't be kept just because there are sources. I also do not like the fact you've accused me of censorship both here and at another AfD just because I'm trying to apply the same standards to this article as we apply to articles about any candidate.
1306:. No we aren't. The candidacy is not Knowledge notable. The pardon is not Knowledge notable. Feel free to scroll through the list of people who have received pardons for a full list of how many not Knowledge-notable people have received a pardon.--
1361:
that one event. Yes, people are writing about her because she's running for office, but they're writing about more of her history than just this race. That gives us enough coverage to write a more comprehensive article and avoid BLP1E problems.
1087:. Essentially all the coverage of her which has been presented is about her run in the 2020 Congressional elections (which she is almost certainly going to lose, as far as I can see). Knowledge considers the enduring notability of people (
993:
Because she is a current candidate with no other claim to notability! The pardon doesn't come close to GNG, someone mentioned a reality TV show but that's not mentioned in the article, and notability is not inherited through her family.
212:
1183:
Nothing I have said there should indicate that this makes the article notable. I'm literally saying that this proves she fails notability. Her activism is covered only so far as it is related to her candidacy. Thus,
591:
Thank you for clarifying that you really meant NOTNEWS and BLP1E. I don't agree that it's only one event, ant that those are reasons to delete, but at least those guidelines could possibly be a reason to delete.
1084:
329:
965:
I created this article. I didn't create it to support a political campaign, not even a little bit. Why do you keep saying it was created solely to support a campaign? What am I missing here?
304:
1169:
That dissection is very good argument why this article is not BLP1E. But, of course, we look at the whole picture and the combined activities, accomplishments, and awards in a biography.
333:
979:
Can we now agree the claim made not once, but twice, was to why the article was created is clarified and stop attempting to read minds and presume to known why articles are written?
206:
284:
52:. After extended time for discussion, consensus has fairly clearly fallen on the side of the subject's collection of points of notability establishing general notability.
611:"connections." She's extremely unlikely to win - if she does, we can recreate the article. We could redirect to the election article if we want to keep the information.
165:
1148:
688:
112:
97:
1135:? No. A car theft ring is not unusual nor do the sources about that ring indicate there was different than any other ring. Does her activism meeting
1282:
460:
451:
1201:
138:
133:
768:
it was the BET Network docu-series “From the Bottom Up." Please note: This would be considered a primary source and would not prove notability.--
172:
142:
357:. People do not automatically qualify for Knowledge articles just for being candidates in elections they have not won: the notability test at
125:
366:
markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies. Obviously no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if she wins.
1032:
1008:
955:
888:
743:
625:
577:
510:
416:
463:
934:
1192:
based off of this candidacy or any of the other few things that are cited. Finally, none of what has been described constitutes a
813:
That in of itself does not meet notability as it is a single event with minimal society-wide reprecusions (though happy for her).
496:, since almost all of her coverage is in the context of the election apart from her pardon, which wouldn't make her wiki-notable.
227:
1121:
194:
1113:
I did a quick news search and stopped looking after four pages - there's easily enough sustained coverage to write an article.
1045:
92:
85:
17:
929:
as the coverage of her isn't lasting, since it's all a part of her campaign, with the exception of two articles where she's
1132:
457:
106:
102:
188:
1131:. No one is arguing that there is not enough internet content to write an article. Does her criminal activity meet
970:
862:
No one's arguing she doesn't - almost all political candidates will meet GNG for their campaign activity. However,
597:
530:
454:
390:
1371:
1344:
1315:
1298:
1261:
1243:
1213:
1178:
1160:
1123:
1105:
1057:
1037:
1013:
988:
974:
960:
912:
893:
853:
830:
777:
748:
720:
700:
679:
662:
630:
601:
582:
534:
515:
479:
439:
421:
394:
375:
344:
316:
296:
276:
67:
1392:
435:
40:
184:
129:
1024:
1000:
947:
880:
735:
696:
617:
569:
502:
408:
234:
260:
448:
1388:
966:
593:
526:
386:
36:
1044:
An assertion is not a "because". Also, absolutely no PROMO here. Article is completely written with a
818:
817:
Multiple posters have maintained candidate in of itself does not meet notability unless it passes the
1294:
1239:
1232:
1136:
1119:
845:
476:
431:
797:
So are a lot of people. What makes her more notable than any other citizen who engages in activism?
466:
220:
121:
73:
1367:
1340:
1048:. If otherwise, please point out which language is promotional and that can be easily corrected.
1019:
995:
942:
875:
759:
730:
692:
612:
564:
497:
403:
312:
292:
272:
200:
1018:
I also want to make clear I have no issue with a merge/redirect to the article on the election.
921:
a means of promotion - it's an article created solely to support a political campaign - and it
1311:
1257:
1209:
1156:
1088:
926:
871:
826:
773:
658:
556:
371:
248:
81:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1387:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
469:, a DC-based publication, as well as the usual national outlets. This is a clear keep to me.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1274:
1228:
1174:
1053:
984:
908:
716:
711:. Not 1E: anti-choice activist, reality TV star, author, pardoned, candidate. Passes BASIC.
675:
340:
62:
1357:
because of one event (in this case, her candidacy) does not mean that the coverage is only
1290:
1286:
1278:
1235:
1114:
1092:
935:
Knowledge:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Rethinking_notability_standards_for_political_candidates
867:
560:
473:
256:
252:
802:
1200:. I would argue that none of the events in questions are Knowledge notable. Please see
1140:
489:
358:
264:
1091:), and being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should have an article (
866:
trumps GNG, and even if we assume she's not a BLP1E (she is) this article still fails
765:
1363:
1336:
938:
863:
552:
548:
544:
493:
308:
288:
268:
244:
1307:
1253:
1205:
1152:
1098:
822:
769:
654:
402:
per nom. She is not notable as a candidate, as a family member, or just generally.
367:
650:
Many reliable sources exist on the subject and also notable for being pardoned by
447:
passes GNG, and not just for her candidacy. SIGCOV sources include the following:
430:
election for a position that meets notability guidelines, she will not be notable.
385:
Multiple non-trivial reliable sources exist on the suject and are in the article.
159:
1170:
1049:
980:
904:
788:
712:
671:
336:
53:
1252:
Except we don't. That coverage is about a single event which is her campaign.--
937:. GNG is just a presumption - if something passes GNG but fails one or more of
563:(and no, getting pardoned is not a "second event") as an unelected candidate.
1188:
There is no reason to believe that in the immediate future she will become a
1202:
Knowledge:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event
1085:
2020 United States House of
Representatives elections in Georgia#District 5
1186:
reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
933:. This is accepted procedure. For discussion of how this works, check
267:
as an unelected candidate, and she's not going to beat John Lewis. –
651:
1381:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
330:
870:(as it was created exclusively to support the campaign) and
805:
with no proof provided she was even in multiple episodes.
1145:"significant national spokesperson for a political issue"
874:(as all of the significant coverage is of her campaign.)
334:
List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump
305:
list of
Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions
259:
relating to her pardon, but not much. Also notability is
155:
151:
147:
551:
and still not be eligible for an article - that's why
219:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1395:). No further edits should be made to this page.
687:Note: This discussion has been included in the
303:Note: This discussion has been included in the
285:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
283:Note: This discussion has been included in the
233:
8:
255:issues with this subject, as there are some
113:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
1149:the common outcomes for politician articles
689:list of Women-related deletion discussions
686:
302:
282:
801:The docu-series on which she appears
7:
821:test for historical significance.--
842:Meets GNG per the above sources. ~
24:
543:Pretty much all candidates meet
98:Introduction to deletion process
1046:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
263:from her godmother. Also fails
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1335:of the notability guideline. –
1281:. The subject also received a
1196:in which the individual had a
1143:does not meet the standard of
1:
1353:Also, just because coverage
88:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1412:
1227:we have enough SIGCOV per
663:21:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
480:19:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
440:16:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
422:01:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
395:00:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
376:22:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
345:20:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
317:19:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
297:19:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
277:19:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
68:00:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
1384:Please do not modify it.
1372:23:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
1345:23:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
1316:20:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
1299:19:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
1262:17:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
1244:16:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
1214:16:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
1179:05:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
1161:03:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
1124:18:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
1106:15:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
1058:10:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
1038:03:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
1014:01:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
989:00:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
975:23:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
961:22:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
913:21:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
894:16:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
854:14:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
831:03:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
778:03:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
749:16:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
721:14:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
701:12:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
680:06:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
631:18:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
602:19:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
583:17:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
535:16:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
516:06:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
243:Does not appear to meet
32:Please do not modify it.
1190:high profile individual
1139:? Her advocacy for the
766:her own publicity site
795:Anti-choice activist?
492:and more importantly
86:Articles for deletion
1137:Knowledge:Politician
1285:. No such thing as
1283:Presidential Pardon
819:Christine O'Donnell
803:ran for two seasons
555:applies. She fails
547:, but you can pass
467:Washington Informer
122:Angela Stanton-King
74:Angela Stanton-King
1133:Knowledge:Criminal
1194:significant event
729:Reality TV star?
703:
432:John Pack Lambert
319:
299:
103:Guide to deletion
93:How to contribute
1403:
1386:
1333:the entire point
1289:so we are good.
1198:substantial role
1147:as described in
1101:
1035:
1027:
1011:
1003:
967:Peregrine Fisher
958:
950:
891:
883:
848:
799:Reality TV star?
792:
763:
746:
738:
628:
620:
594:Peregrine Fisher
580:
572:
527:Peregrine Fisher
513:
505:
472:
419:
411:
387:Peregrine Fisher
238:
237:
223:
175:
163:
145:
83:
60:
34:
1411:
1410:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1393:deletion review
1382:
1099:
1031:
1023:
1007:
999:
954:
946:
887:
879:
846:
786:
757:
742:
734:
624:
616:
576:
568:
509:
501:
470:
415:
407:
261:WP:NOTINHERITED
180:
171:
136:
120:
117:
80:
77:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1409:
1407:
1398:
1397:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1348:
1347:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1265:
1264:
1247:
1246:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1164:
1163:
1141:First Step Act
1126:
1108:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1016:
897:
896:
857:
856:
836:
835:
834:
833:
783:
782:
781:
780:
752:
751:
724:
723:
705:
704:
683:
682:
670:satisfies GNG
665:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
605:
604:
586:
585:
538:
537:
519:
518:
483:
482:
442:
424:
397:
379:
378:
348:
321:
320:
300:
241:
240:
177:
116:
115:
110:
100:
95:
78:
76:
71:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1408:
1396:
1394:
1390:
1385:
1379:
1378:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1327:
1326:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1234:
1233:WP:NOTCLEANUP
1230:
1226:
1223:
1222:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1127:
1125:
1122:
1120:
1118:
1117:
1112:
1109:
1107:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1036:
1034:
1028:
1026:
1021:
1020:SportingFlyer
1017:
1015:
1012:
1010:
1004:
1002:
997:
996:SportingFlyer
992:
991:
990:
986:
982:
978:
977:
976:
972:
968:
964:
963:
962:
959:
957:
951:
949:
944:
943:SportingFlyer
940:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
915:
914:
910:
906:
901:
900:
899:
898:
895:
892:
890:
884:
882:
877:
876:SportingFlyer
873:
869:
865:
861:
860:
859:
858:
855:
851:
850:
849:
841:
838:
837:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
796:
790:
785:
784:
779:
775:
771:
767:
764:According to
761:
760:SportingFlyer
756:
755:
754:
753:
750:
747:
745:
739:
737:
732:
731:SportingFlyer
728:
727:
726:
725:
722:
718:
714:
710:
707:
706:
702:
698:
694:
693:Coolabahapple
690:
685:
684:
681:
677:
673:
669:
666:
664:
660:
656:
655:🌸 1.Ayana 🌸
653:
649:
646:
645:
632:
629:
627:
621:
619:
614:
613:SportingFlyer
609:
608:
607:
606:
603:
599:
595:
590:
589:
588:
587:
584:
581:
579:
573:
571:
566:
565:SportingFlyer
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
541:
540:
539:
536:
532:
528:
523:
522:
521:
520:
517:
514:
512:
506:
504:
499:
498:SportingFlyer
495:
491:
487:
486:
485:
484:
481:
478:
475:
468:
464:
461:
458:
455:
452:
449:
446:
443:
441:
437:
433:
428:
425:
423:
420:
418:
412:
410:
405:
404:SportingFlyer
401:
398:
396:
392:
388:
384:
381:
380:
377:
373:
369:
364:
360:
356:
352:
349:
347:
346:
342:
338:
335:
331:
327:
323:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
301:
298:
294:
290:
286:
281:
280:
279:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
236:
232:
229:
226:
222:
218:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
186:
183:
182:Find sources:
178:
174:
170:
167:
161:
157:
153:
149:
144:
140:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
118:
114:
111:
108:
104:
101:
99:
96:
94:
91:
90:
89:
87:
82:
75:
72:
70:
69:
66:
65:
61:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1383:
1380:
1358:
1354:
1332:
1328:
1303:
1273:: plenty of
1270:
1224:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1144:
1128:
1115:
1110:
1097:
1096:
1080:
1030:
1022:
1006:
998:
953:
945:
930:
922:
918:
886:
878:
844:
843:
839:
814:
810:
806:
798:
794:
741:
733:
708:
667:
647:
623:
615:
575:
567:
508:
500:
444:
426:
414:
406:
399:
382:
362:
354:
350:
325:
324:
242:
230:
224:
216:
209:
203:
197:
191:
181:
168:
79:
63:
56:
55:
49:
47:
31:
28:
809:Her book .
207:free images
1291:Lightburst
1236:Lightburst
1116:Ritchie333
1089:WP:NOTNEWS
927:WP:NOTNEWS
872:WP:NOTNEWS
815:Candidate?
557:WP:NOTNEWS
488:She fails
249:WP:NOTNEWS
247:. There's
1389:talk page
1277:this not
1275:WP:SIGCOV
1229:WP:NEXIST
931:mentioned
811:Pardoned?
37:talk page
1391:or in a
1364:Darkwind
1337:Darkwind
1287:WP:BLP2E
1279:WP:BLP1E
1093:WP:BLP1E
1081:Redirect
868:WP:PROMO
561:WP:BLP1E
355:redirect
326:Redirect
309:Muboshgu
289:Muboshgu
269:Muboshgu
257:WP:GHITS
253:WP:BLP1E
166:View log
107:glossary
39:or in a
1308:Mpen320
1304:Comment
1271:Comment
1254:Mpen320
1206:Mpen320
1153:Mpen320
1100:Hut 8.5
823:Mpen320
807:Author?
770:Mpen320
490:WP:NPOL
477:Jack 🌵
368:Bearcat
363:holding
359:WP:NPOL
353:and/or
265:WP:NPOL
213:WP refs
201:scholar
139:protect
134:history
84:New to
1355:exists
1171:Djflem
1129:Delete
1050:Djflem
981:Djflem
939:WP:NOT
905:Djflem
864:WP:NOT
789:Pburka
713:pburka
672:Djflem
553:WP:NOT
549:WP:GNG
545:WP:GNG
494:WP:NOT
474:Cactus
427:Delete
400:Delete
351:Delete
337:Djflem
245:WP:GNG
185:Google
143:delete
57:BD2412
1359:about
652:Trump
328:: -->
228:JSTOR
189:books
173:Stats
160:views
152:watch
148:links
16:<
1368:talk
1341:talk
1329:Keep
1312:talk
1295:talk
1258:talk
1240:talk
1225:Keep
1210:talk
1175:talk
1157:talk
1111:Keep
1054:talk
985:talk
971:talk
909:talk
847:EDDY
840:Keep
827:talk
774:talk
717:talk
709:Keep
697:talk
676:talk
668:Keep
659:talk
648:Keep
598:talk
559:and
531:talk
445:Keep
436:talk
391:talk
383:Keep
372:talk
341:talk
313:talk
307:. –
293:talk
287:. –
273:talk
251:and
221:FENS
195:news
156:logs
130:talk
126:edit
50:keep
1083:to
917:It
471:−−−
361:is
332:or
235:TWL
164:– (
1370:)
1343:)
1314:)
1297:)
1260:)
1242:)
1231:.
1212:)
1204:--
1177:)
1159:)
1056:)
987:)
973:)
925:a
923:is
919:is
911:)
852:~
829:)
793:.
776:)
719:)
699:)
691:.
678:)
661:)
600:)
533:)
462:,
459:,
456:,
453:,
450:,
438:)
393:)
374:)
343:)
315:)
295:)
275:)
215:)
158:|
154:|
150:|
146:|
141:|
137:|
132:|
128:|
1366:(
1362:–
1339:(
1310:(
1293:(
1256:(
1238:(
1208:(
1173:(
1155:(
1052:(
1033:C
1029:·
1025:T
1009:C
1005:·
1001:T
983:(
969:(
956:C
952:·
948:T
907:(
889:C
885:·
881:T
825:(
791::
787:@
772:(
762::
758:@
744:C
740:·
736:T
715:(
695:(
674:(
657:(
626:C
622:·
618:T
596:(
578:C
574:·
570:T
529:(
511:C
507:·
503:T
434:(
417:C
413:·
409:T
389:(
370:(
339:(
311:(
291:(
271:(
239:)
231:·
225:·
217:·
210:·
204:·
198:·
192:·
187:(
179:(
176:)
169:·
162:)
124:(
109:)
105:(
64:T
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.