Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendra Yarbrough-Camarena

Kendra Yarbrough-Camarena[edit]

Kendra Yarbrough-Camarena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Campaign-style profile of an unelected political candidate with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Was previously tagged for prod; an anonymous IP number came and removed the tag while adding a single reference which happens to briefly mention her name in a list of "ten races to watch", but which fails to meet the standard of being substantial coverage that's about her. Certainly she can come back if she wins — but until then, simply being a candidate is not a valid encyclopedic claim of notability. For the time being, delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the nom says. Very spammy, to boot. Ray^Talk 15:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At this point she is just a middle-school teacher and candidate for state office, but she has never held office. She rates a single sentence in an article about the coming elections, and nothing else that I can find. An example of Melanie's Law: articles which refer to their subject by first name, rather than last name, almost always turn out to be non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can I propose Vartanza's law? Lengthy articles on political candidates that don't mention the candidate's party affiliation tend to be COI or spam. (After some searching, one can find ms. yarbrough-camarena's party line, but it's not even listed on her website) Vartanza (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that a lot of politicians - notable or not, incumbent or challenger - don't mention their party nowadays. Their signs say "Smith for Congress" rather than "Smith, Republican for Congress" or "Smith, Democrat for Congress." Oddly, this article doesn't even mention the subject's biggest claim to fame: the fact that her father Ken Yarbrough used to hold the same seat in the state legislature that she is running for. --MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, merely running for office does not grant notability per WP:POLITICIAN, nor is there any coverage showing the subject meets WP:GNG. Many of the current officeholders in the Texas House of Representatives don't even have articles, because there just isn't enough non-local significant coverage about them to write a sourced encyclopedic article; from what I can tell, there definitely is nothing substantial out there about this candidate either. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, and in addition the fact that the article is entirely sourced by primary sources makes it hard to trust its neutrality. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2010 (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.