Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Ortiz Jones

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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Ortiz Jones

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article because I was searching for info about Ortiz Jones. WP:NPOL has an exception that I think she solidly meets: substantial coverage and interest from RS that are independent of the politician, for example Time Magazine, Teen Vogue, HuffPo, Filipino-interest publications, and more. She is also getting coverage because she has been endorsed by DFA, Emily's List, and quite a few more organizations that value her salty, intelligent comments plus her being Asian, veteran, gay, grown up in poverty, and more. Also, thanks to suggestion from I dream of horses, the article may meet WP:GNG based on the many independent news articles already written about Ortiz Jones. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - While most of the coverage about her seems to be about her campaign, there seem to be just enough of said sources, as well as sources that discuss specifically her as opposed to just her campaign, that while her passing WP:NPOL is debatable, WP:GNG seems to be met. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I completely respect the decision to AfD the original stub based on WP:NPOL, but the article includes in-depth material from Harvard Political Review,Huffpo, Ozy (magazine), ABS-CBN, news stories that include long quotes from the subject and in-depth material about her life. The article now has 9 RS references including Teen Vogue and Time Magazine. I believe it meets the criterion of 'A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists' described in Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_note-note6-8. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL at this time and not notable otherwise....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass gng. Rab V (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I clicked through the sources and I think she passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Lonehexagon (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was in Teen Vogue, which is one of the best fake news sources out there.104.163.158.37 (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected congressional candidates are not default notable. We should stop treating people as notable for just linking to buzz words.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are not notable by default but if they pass other guidelines that demonstrate notability they can be included. This person easily passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Lonehexagon (talk) 17:41, 7 April 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.