Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Arnone

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 14:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Arnone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable politician who has never held elected office and for whom there are no sources passing WP:GNG. User:Namiba 13:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 13:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 13:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is a potential claim of notability but none of the sourcing that would be necessary. The sourcing in the article is far from in depth and I was unable to find anything in a Google search that would support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being a functionary on a political campaign does not make someone notable unless we have multiple significant sources. It is articles like this that lead to us having nearly 1 million articles on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 22:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being co-chair of a political party could get her into Wikipedia if she could be shown to clear WP:GNG on her sourceability, but it is not an automatic inclusion freebie that entitles her to keep a virtually unsourced Wikipedia article just because she exists. She is the bylined author, not the subject, of the only footnote present here, which means it isn't a notability-supporting source — and even if it were a notability-supporting source, she would still need quite a bit more than just one of those. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no sourcing to indicate that Arnone passes WP:GNG and WP:NPOL is clearly not passed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:04, 27 April 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.