Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah

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 18:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah

[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)

Non-notable political candidate. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is clearly notable and the article very clearly makes that known. Frankly, this deletion nomination smells of bad-faith political chicanery. --Jorm (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jorm: You seem to think that she did something to give her automatic notability. How does getting 4th place in a primary or her government advisor roles make her notable? Most non-winning candidates get deleted and her particular government positions don't have an article unlike Senior Advisor to the President of the United States which would help make the case of her being notable because of that. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an unsuccessful candidate in a political party primary is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — a person has to win the election, not just run in it, to clinch notability as a politician, and the fact that some campaign coverage existed during the primary itself (a fact which, by definition, has to be true of every candidate in the primary) is not enough in and of itself to get her over WP:GNG in lieu of failing WP:NPOL. And while her prior role might make her notable enough if she could be shown to have received media coverage in that context while she was holding that role, it does not make her notable enough for an article just because you can technically source the fact to passing mentions of it as career background in the campaign coverage (because, again, every candidate's campaign coverage will always mention their career background, so the latter approach would render every candidate able to claim notability for their prior career that exempted them from having to win the election first.)
To properly demonstrate that a non-winning candidate has preexisting notability under a different inclusion criterion, the test is to take all of the campaign coverage out of the mix, and see if what's left would have been enough to get her in the door on those other grounds even if the campaign coverage didn't exist at all. But if I do that, all that's left is a Buzzfeed listicle and a local human interest piece in her husband's hometown media about their wedding — which is not what it would have taken to get her over GNG independently of the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018. Bearcat says it best, unsuccessful candidates for political office do not meet WP:NPOL and campaign coverage is not going to meet GNG because it's a one event kind of thing. The creation of articles for political candidates in general is better proof of so-called "political chicanery". Bkissin (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect - failed political candidate, no true outside coverage of her from her campaign to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 06:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lost in the primary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 11 November 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.