Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette

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 and redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania#Republican primary. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Barnette

[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)

Fails WP:NPOL; references do not establish notability beyond routine campaign coverage. Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania#Republican primary. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine but can the current page be saved under a draft Anish631 (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Anish631[reply]
I don't have any problem with that. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania#Republican primary. Fails WP:NPOL and has not received an unusual amount of national-level coverage (Ex: Christine O'Donnell). Obviously, if Barnette wins the election the article can be recreated. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania#Republican primary. Sources nearly all surround her candidacy or he previous failed candidacy for Congress. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She qualifies as a media presence and author, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkCxKgaf4p0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7qzCFjDVIc ISBN: 978-1-5460-8575-1 Pibolata (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Pibolata (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pibolata (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Pibolata (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube videos cannot be used as support notability at all, and being an interview guest on the news is not a notability maker: a person does not get over our notability rules by being the speaker in coverage about other things, she gets over our notability rules by being the subject that is being spoken or written about by other people. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No prejudice against draftification if desired, but I'm not confident that the editor who's asking for that understands that draftspace isn't forever — even if it's sandboxed, the page will still be deletable in October if it hasn't been improved to a "can now be returned to mainspace again" standard. But people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, the article is not properly demonstrating that she has sufficient preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacy, and the sourcing is not solid enough to get her over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass any specific notability standard: it's far too dependent on primary sources (Twitter tweets, raw tables of election results, her book's promotional profile on the self-published website of its own publisher, etc.) that are not support for notability at all, and the sources that are real media coverage are entirely run of the mill campaign coverage, not demonstrating any credible reason to treat her candidacy as more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for US house are almost never notable. Here advocacy related to her birth origins is just not covered enough to show notability. Canidaates for US senate are sometimes notable, but this usually applies to winners of the primary, which is still a year or more away, and even then most are not. She may eventually get enough coverage, and she may win the election when she will be clearly notable (by election I mean the general, winning the primary is not a notability freebie), but until that happens we should not have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Kathy Barnette article. It contains helpful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.210.195 (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to provide actual reasoning as to why you think Barnette meets Wikipedia's notability guideline. "It's helpful" is not a valid argument. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:33, 17 April 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.