Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina López

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. Sandstein 17:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christina López

[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)

Delete or Merge Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG as a non-notable fringe candidate. KidAd (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe party candidates for president or vice-president can sometimes clear the bar if they can actually be referenced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but are not automatically entitled to keep poorly sourced articles just because their name appeared on a ballot. But GNG is not just about counting the number of footnotes present in the article and keeping anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number of them, either — GNG tests the sources for their type (e.g. major market daily newspapers count for the most, while weeklies and smalltown dailies are worth much less), their geographic range, their intellectual independence from the topic, their depth and the context of what the person is being covered for. The sources here — two alt-weeklies, one primary source press release from her own party, one book chapter where she's the author and not the subject, and one smalltown daily — are simply not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:GNG (4 independent sources IMNSHO clear 'multiple sources' requirement with flying colors - and nothing in WP:GNG says that alt-weekly doesn't qualify as an WP:RS). Ipsign (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said alt-weeklies are entirely ineligible for use — but if there are so few genuinely solid sources that alt-weeklies are very nearly the best sources you can find, then they haven't passed GNG just because they can show a bit of coverage in alt-weeklies. GNG is not, and never has been, just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number" — it does test the sources for other factors besides just the raw number, such as depth and breadth and range and type and context. If a person had 20 or 30 good and useful sources, then we wouldn't care if some of them were alt-weeklies — but if a person has so few sources that two alt-weeklies represent fully half of the total, then that's not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable political candidate. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:39, 10 May 2020 (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.