Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Hallquist

Christine Hallquist

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Christine Hallquist (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)

Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN as a political candidate not (yet) elected. StAnselm (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep WP:POLITICIAN states: "… an unelected candidate for political office … can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'" As shown by references in BLP to The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Boston Globe, Christine Hallquist meets that criterion. KalHolmann (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I agree that the articles in the Washington Post, New York Times, and Boston Globe establish WP:GNG, and hence justify the article with no need to justify WP:NPOLITICIAN. I've checked in the UK and find coverage in The Guardian, The Independent, and BBC news on her. I think this is a case where WP:BEFORE should have been applied more robustly. Ross-c (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Merge with Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018 where she was notable for one event (WP:BLP1E) only. Add content about how she made history–but she doesn't need her own article. Similarly to Rebekah Kennedy–merged/redirected with the election where she made history by receiving the highest ever percentage for a Green Party candidate in a U.S. Senate election. If she wins (which is unlikely considering the polls and ratings for the race), then the article shall be restored. Yes, she isn't elected yet, so the point made in the nomination is valid. Redditaddict69 09:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep As stated earlier, he general coverage for her in the news has been far more substantial than other gubernatorial primary winners, and a cursory reading of many of these articles establishes an argument for notability in accordance with WP:GNG.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:GNG and does not fall under criteria 2 and 3 of WP:BLP1E (she is currently not a low profile individual, the event and her role in it is well documented.) Rab V (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Its not about WP:POLITICIAN as she passes WP:GNG. Probably passed GNG even before the nomination, given her gender transition while CEO, and the subsequent film.--Theredproject (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Maybe most unelected candidates aren't notable, but there are exceptions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Also, trans visibility. I believe that Hellquist is the first openly trans candidate to be voted into office in the US. RachelWex (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)