Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibiana Boerio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. King of 23:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bibiana Boerio (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)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Nothing in this person's life meets a notability guideline and sourcing is sparse. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That particular entry isn't useful but other coverage such as Post Gazette and TribLive does cover her substantially. Our entry can easily be expanded. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they do. TribLive has a little coverage, but much of it seems to be about the election rather than Boerio. Post Gazette has far fewer mentions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect she doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG and no harm in redirecting to the election page. SportingFlyer talk 02:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- She does not pass WP:NPOL nor is she notable for her position as president of Seton Hill University. WP:NACADEMIC specifies that it only applies to heads of major academic institutions, Seton Hill is not major.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a few more citations to the article. This candidate has received more coverage than typical campaign announcements. She has an executive profile on Bloomberg from her previous work.[4] She received significant coverage about her candidacy announcement, then received more significant coverage after winning the Democratic primary. She was recently profiled by the New York Times.[5] Considering she just won the nomination a week or two ago and has already received this much significant coverage, I don't see any reason to delete this article. It seems the coverage will almost certainly continue to intensify as we approach the election, and the article already passes WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am seeing enough reliable coverage to meet WP:GNG. --RAN (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:14, 26 May 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.