Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irene Estrada

Irene Estrada

[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)

Perennial candidate with no substantial solo news coverage, violates WP:BIO Scuba 01:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should see when election night coverage comes out. I agree, but let's postpone it a little bit. There is the theoretical possibility of a surprise boost. Actually, nevermind. That was meant to be a thought experiment in how irrational the defense will be. There will be no leading of major candidates, no boost, only a few precincts at the best, even that being unreasonable. No media airtime, no debate stage, only a deleted article. Delete. Jayson (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly doubt it, I wouldn't hold your breath for Estrada getting enough votes to get any substantial coverage. Scuba 01:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:GNG and WP:BIO; [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] all provide varyingly levels of WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Some articles contain quotes from interview, but also all contain significant independent analysis of those quotes in a way that makes it "independent of the subject", cumulatively contributing to notability per WP:BASIC "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Katzrockso (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Bronx Bulliten nor Norwood news nor City limits are notable sources. Also in order for an individual to be notable, they must have coverage from outside the election, so there goes the NY1 and NYT articles, the latter of which isn't even a stand alone article about her. Scuba 02:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have notability. "Also in order for an individual to be notable, they must have coverage from outside the election" is not factually accurate, there is no such aspect of the WP:GNG that mandates that a person must have coverage from outside of an election. Katzrockso (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre statement to make in direct contradiction with WP:NPOL, to quote to save you the data;

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the WP:GNG.

The key point here is that they have to meet WP:GNG independently of their status of a candidate for political office. General rule of thumb to cross the notability threshold is 3 WP:RS

I loath citing WP bylaw, please don't make me do it again. Cheers! Scuba 05:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the words in WP:NPOL state anything remotely similar to "they have to meet WP:GNG independently of their status of a candidate for political office", they merely describe that an unelected candidate is not automatically notable by virtue of standing for election. Katzrockso (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Subject does not pass WP:NPOL. Local news usually cover all candidates of a local race at least a few times, especially if there are not that many on the ballot. Estrada has never been elected to a public office, so her notability rests with her status as a perennial candidate, to satisfy the second point of WP:NPOL: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". I disagree that local coverage of her as a fringe candidate is "significant press coverage". Yue🌙 04:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as the person who created this article, I acknowledge this is a bit of a close call. WP:NPOL establishes inherent notability for certain classes of political figures and judges (which Estrada is not in), and clarifies that being an unelected candidate does not guarantee notability. Estrada would not be notable were it just for her myriad runs for office prior to 2025, and I think she probably wouldn't be notable with solely her run for mayor this year. But with these factors combined, I believe she meets WP:GNG for the coverage of her as a candidate for political office. Katzrockso has already mentioned sources that provide WP:SIGCOV, which I'll repeat here. I think the Norwood News source, from a local Bronx newspaper, provides useful biographical information as well as broader coverage beyond quotes, NY1 contains a blurb on her campaign and background, and The Bronx Bulletin has an analysis of the finance of her campaign and how she came to stand. I can understand why some are dismissive of the article, but I believe the small coverage Estrada has recieved adds up to meeting WP:GNG. --LivelyRatification (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article just crosses the minimum requirements GNG and NPOL. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think the sources provided pass GNG. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she's run in several elections now and has gained minor notoriety. The previous elections were not enough to establish notability, but given that she was the Conservative Party's candidate in 2025, I lean towards keep. Ageofultron (talk 23:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm leaning weak delete as subject has only received coverage as a political candidate and it's my understanding that Wikipedia consensus is that until elected one doesn't meet the notability guidelines even if there's significant coverage in local sources, because candidates are often receive coverage when they run for office. If elected WP:NPOL would apply. I have some sympathy for the perennial candidate notability argument. Would be good to have clarity if a perennial candidate with only local sources crosses the notability threshold. Nnev66 (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any aspect of policy that could justify excluding local sources of a perennial candidate. Perhaps on a case by case basis when evaluating the sources (i.e. all sources are non-independent or paid coverage), but that's in virtue of the content of the sourcing itself but in virtue of the type of sourcing. Katzrockso (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the perspective I shared isn't stated explicitly in policy but it's the opinion of experienced editors I've encountered here when discussing politicians, which is why I stated leaning weak delete. However, I personally am more neutral about this one which is why I didn't !vote. I'd like to better understand the consensus around articles for candidates who were never elected. Nnev66 (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she has run in more than one race in New York and has received news reporting in more than one ocassion, she is notable enough to have her own article. SuperGion915 (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]