Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 June 20

Darializa Avila Chevalier – Speedy Moot. History has been restored behind the redirect which resolves participants' concerns. Star Mississippi 00:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Darializa Avila Chevalier (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`revisions`\|`restore) Spartaz closed the AfD with the summary The result was delete and redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York. In discussion on Spartaz's user talk page, CopyleftEverything offered a robust assessment of the AfD, including: On the merits of the deletion closer: I mostly agree with إيان. (Disclosure: Both of us !voted "keep", so we may be biased.) By my count, there were 9 !votes for keep (Tiamut; إيان; BobFromBrockley; Chao Garden; Edittttor; CopyleftEverything; Tbrechner; Katt Wilm; Smgraves623), 6 for delete (CambridgeBayWeather; EaglesFan37; CharlesBluth; Cachedio; Stanloona2020; and Pretzel Quetzal would've !voted), 6 for redirect (Enos733; Cfgauss77; FantinoFalco; pburka; William.E.Goat; Biosketch). That's 9-12. Closing this as delete is not unreasonable. But there was NOT a clear consensus. IMO the debate was essentially between WP:GNG through WP:SIGCOV (for "keep") versus WP:BIO1E (for "delete"). I think the sources, including those listed by إيان above, clearly meet WP:GOLDENRULE coverage of activity before & outside the election campaign. The election campaign itself is arguably notable in-and-of-itself -- the coordinated Mamdani-DSA-JusticeDem effort to unseat a powerful incumbent received an enormous amount of coverage. After the article's deletion, there is no coverage of this effort on Wikipedia. To point to a recent AFD for a challenger candidate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Platner. When that article was listed for AFD, it had 6 sources. But it was kept, long before the election, because a few months later, it had 27 sources, the vast majority of which WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. It is hard for me to see why that page should've been kept, but not Darializa Avila Chevalier, when DAC's article contained more sources and a similar amount of WP:SIGCOV. To close with WP:THREE: 1. City & State's June 2026 profile of DAC; 2. NYTimes's May 2026 profile of DAC, 3. The City Reporter's January 2026 profile of DAC. Each discusses DAC's past activism, present campaign, and ideology in detail. Spartaz then expanded on their close summary: Firstly the relevant policy here is NPOL which is a special use case of 1E. Consequently, coverage has to be outside the context of elections. At least in this case the keep side put forward some sources but these were not universally adopted, were challenged and after the last relist the consensus very clearly coalesced around a redirect. While maybe unfair on the early votors, I find the opinions of users who come to a more mature discussion are usually the most informed and have the benefit of the whole source picture put up by the keep side. That they were unpersuaded by the keep arguments was what directed my conclusion As I had stated in the AfD discussion, NPOL is for presumed notability. It does not supersede SIGCOV and the policy explicitly states: 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 general notability guideline. The !votes to delete the article, a number of which appear to be drive-by !votes, do not provide any convincing argument against this. إيان (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Endorse involved. Editors split 9 (keep) - 12 (delete/redirect) on leaving the page as a stand-alone page and deletes and redirect comments were grounded in policy. This is the second AfD of the subject, which was closed initially as delete in February 2026. In addition, 5/6 editors who commented after the relist were to delete or redirect the page (after sources were provided in the discussion and in the article). --Enos733 (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC) I have no objections to the revised close retaining the article's history. - Enos733 (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Endorse redirect but restore the deleted history behind it. Counting noses is a fool's errand. If the entire SIGCOV cited by the Keeps revolves around one election cycle, coverage in the relevant election article may very well be all that is encyclopaedically warranted. Enos733 said it best, and their !vote, along with those who agreed with Enos733, carries more P&G weight than that of the Keeps. That said, I see no valid argument to delete the history behind the redirect. If there's any copyvios or other policy violations there, those--and only those--revs can be deleted. But the rest should be restored, allowing anyone to selectively merge relevant content to the target while observing WP:DUE. Owen× ☎ 22:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC) The issue with covering candidates in the election articles is that their traditional standardized structure is not beholden to contain the encyclopedic information that is covered by the sources. Where in 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 13 (an already overburdened article) would you suggest the policy positions of each candidate (which are often covered by reliable sources) go? There is plenty of pertinent and encyclopedic information in an article like this . Katzrockso (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC) I concur that there is a consensus against retaining a standalone article in the discussion, however, so overturning to redirect is the best outcome. Katzrockso (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Overturn to redirect (with history retained) largely per OwenX. I do see policy based consensus to not keep as a standalone article. However there is not consensus to delete rather than redirect, nor is there any valid argument to not redirect or to delete the article history. As the argument for not keeping the article is BLP1E, a redirect to that 1E is a very reasonable ATD. Frank Anchor 23:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Comment Spartaz, was there anything particularly concerning in the history that prompted the delete & redirect? This is a BLP, so the risk of something inappropriate in the history is much higher than entertainment content. I'd really like to hear the rationale behind delete and redirect, because like the above 2 !voters, I'm not seeing a compelling reason--or arguments in the AfD--to support delete and redirect instead of a simple redirect. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC) To be fair, in retrospect I probably flubbed the delete part and would be prepared to undo that part of the close. I suspect that I was swayed by the split of later votes between delete and redirect. I stand by the clear consensus to redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Overturn to Redirect if this is what we should say to restore the history. The close of Redirect was correct, but I don't see a reason to delete the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC) I have restored the history below the redirect. In retrospect I think I was swayed by the post relist voters being split between delete and redirect but logically the correct outcome is to maintain the redirect and leave the history below. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Thank you, Spartaz. I believe this now addresses the only overturn issue brought up by participants other than the appellant. No objection to a SNOW close of this DRV. Owen× ☎ 12:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Thank you, this addresses all my issues and would make it easier for editors to recreate the article if Avila Chevalier wins her election and/or gains more significant coverage. I wouldn't object to a SNOW close either. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Hi Pretzel Quetzal and Spartaz: Thanks for restoring the history. :) As a keep !voter, this is better. Looks like consensus here remains against keeping. I am frustrated at this consensus. To revisit my example of Graham Platner: That AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Platner) was closed as "no consensus" (with 22 keep, 17 redirect/delete). That's roughly the same ratio as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darializa Avila Chevalier (2nd nomination) (with 9 keep, 12 redirect/delete). The kept version of Graham Platner had 0 RS predating the election (of 27 sources) and 6 non-lede paragraphs about Platner's life before the campaign, most of which about his military job and bartending job. The deleted version of Darializa Avila Chevalier had 6 RS predating the election (of 45 sources) and 10 non-lede paragraphs about Avila Chevalier's life before the campaign, most of which about her public protests. (It hasn't been WP:10YT yet, but I remember the 2018 Marion Sims protest!) Beyond that: Both Platner and Avila Chevalier are DSA members whose campaigns represent a noisy fight between the socialist/progressive Left wing and liberal/centrist Right wing of the Democratic Party, and IMO are notable in their own right. TLDR: If the Platner article deserved "no consensus", then the DAC article deserved "no consensus". I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS etc etc, but it's frustrating. Anyway, thanks for the undeletion. :) CopyleftEverything (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC) If you are counting votes then you won't get that this was a genuinely no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC) The arguments in both discussions are very similar. Both cite the same Wikipedia guidelines around sustained coverage, routine coverage, politician presumed notability, and enduring notability. I am engaging the substance and suggesting DAC's article should pass even more strongly. CopyleftEverything (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC) FWIW, if Graham Platner were renominated today, I'd argue to delete that one, too. No consensus shouldn't be confused with a consensus to keep. pburka (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC) The difference is in the flow of the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Which itself presents a game theoretic problem, since many editors are partisan on these type of deletion issues, it incentivizes postponing a vote to show a change in opinion. Or it can equally just reflect a random change in the proportion of partisans from 'each side' (i.e. more non-elected politician lovers showed up after the relist and never would have been convinced by the delete arguments). Katzrockso (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC) I agree, this is a big challenge with candidates at AfD. There are incentives, especially of supporters of the candidate, to come out an support positions to keep the article, thinking it will either help their candidate or to argue about fairness: "their opponent has a page." The answer is not to discourage deletion discussions of candidates that do not meet our expectations of notability, but perhaps we should recognize that a closure in the middle of a campaign may not be the final word. - Enos733 (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC) They are never the final word as circumstances might change at anytime and previous consensus will change as soon as the policy basis for inclusion will change. This has always been the way we handle these Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Why especially of supporters of the candidate but not editors who seek to suppress coverage of the topic? إيان (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC) oh please. Suppress? That's real battlefield language and fundamental failure to assume good faith. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC) !votes are not votes and consensus is not established by tally, but by evaluation of arguments grounded in policies and reliable sources. إيان (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC) I definitely share your analysis of the similarities between Platner and Avila Chevalier, and their representation of this wider fight within the Democratic Party. However I think Platner is much more notable than Avila Chevalier as he is running in a swing Senate seat, whereas Avila Chevalier is running to unseat an incumbent Democrat. Platner has been discussed a lot in national politics whereas at the moment I have seen little discussion of Avila Chevalier outside of NY and progressive circles. Obviously this could easily change, if Avila Chevalier were to win tomorrow it would (I think) be the first incumbent Democrat to be primaries (apart from Al Green in Texas where gerrymandering forced two incumbents to run against each other), and she would likely receive significant coverage. Actually a few hours ago, the Guardian covered the race as well , which would be further international coverage. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC) I don't really understand the rush to run these articles into main space. It would make far more sense to concentrate our editing efforts on those candidates who win their primaries or, god forbid, actually win the general. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC) I don’t really understand the reticence. If the sources to establish the notability of a subject are there, why not make sure the information is represented on Wikipedia and available to readers precisely when they are seeking to learn more about the subject in order to make an informed decision when they cast their ballot. إيان (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC) One of the many things Wikipedia is not is an election guide. If we want voters to make informed decisions then we ought to include biographies of every candidate. That is one reason why I, and many other editors, believe that no candidates should be included (unless they're notable outside of election coverage). pburka (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC) If they meet GNG they should have articles. إيان (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC) إيان, you seem to be relitigating the AfD here. DRV is not AfD-round-2. We are here to determine whether the AfD was closed in accordance with a reasonable read of consensus there. If you believe the AfD participants erred in their assessment of the sources, start a spinout discussion at Talk:2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York. DRV is the wrong forum to conduct a source assessment. If they meet GNG they should have articles - that is incorrect. WP:PAGEDECIDE makes it clear that not every subject that meets GNG must have a standalone article, especially if the subject can be adequately covered in another page. Unless you have any new argument relating to the closing of the AfD, I'll ask one of our regulars to close this DRV. Owen× ☎ 17:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Just responding to some comments here. Not opposed to closing this DRV. إيان (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC) I just want to make a point that GNG is not the standard we are using here and NPOL is the controlling guidance dusted with a generous sprinkling of 1E. There is absolutely no value in fighting an established consensus in an area is a contentious topic. You should really reflect on that and ask yourself if your enthusiasm is helping yourself or the project. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC) GNG has a big carveout that you're ignoring: WP:NOT. pburka (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Overturn (to redirect, with history intact). There was not justification to delete the history. There was a clear consensus to redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Nobody suggested draftification? I think it should have been draftified. Unelected candidates for elections, who were not notable before becoming a candidate, are routinely required to remain in draftspace until they are elected. There are good reasons for this. I encourage proponents to ask for the history to be moved to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Darializa Avila Chevalier – Speedy Moot. History has been restored behind the redirect which resolves participants' concerns. Star Mississippi 00:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Spartaz closed the AfD with the summary The result was delete and redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York. In discussion on Spartaz's user talk page, CopyleftEverything offered a robust assessment of the AfD, including:

On the merits of the deletion closer: I mostly agree with إيان. (Disclosure: Both of us !voted "keep", so we may be biased.) By my count, there were 9 !votes for keep (Tiamut; إيان; BobFromBrockley; Chao Garden; Edittttor; CopyleftEverything; Tbrechner; Katt Wilm; Smgraves623), 6 for delete (CambridgeBayWeather; EaglesFan37; CharlesBluth; Cachedio; Stanloona2020; and Pretzel Quetzal would've !voted), 6 for redirect (Enos733; Cfgauss77; FantinoFalco; pburka; William.E.Goat; Biosketch). That's 9-12. Closing this as delete is not unreasonable. But there was NOT a clear consensus.

IMO the debate was essentially between WP:GNG through WP:SIGCOV (for "keep") versus WP:BIO1E (for "delete"). I think the sources, including those listed by إيان above, clearly meet WP:GOLDENRULE coverage of activity before & outside the election campaign. The election campaign itself is arguably notable in-and-of-itself -- the coordinated Mamdani-DSA-JusticeDem effort to unseat a powerful incumbent received an enormous amount of coverage. After the article's deletion, there is no coverage of this effort on Wikipedia.

To point to a recent AFD for a challenger candidate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Platner. When that article was listed for AFD, it had 6 sources. But it was kept, long before the election, because a few months later, it had 27 sources, the vast majority of which WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. It is hard for me to see why that page should've been kept, but not Darializa Avila Chevalier, when DAC's article contained more sources and a similar amount of WP:SIGCOV.

To close with WP:THREE: 1. City & State's June 2026 profile of DAC; 2. NYTimes's May 2026 profile of DAC, 3. The City Reporter's January 2026 profile of DAC. Each discusses DAC's past activism, present campaign, and ideology in detail.

Spartaz then expanded on their close summary:

Firstly the relevant policy here is NPOL which is a special use case of 1E. Consequently, coverage has to be outside the context of elections. At least in this case the keep side put forward some sources but these were not universally adopted, were challenged and after the last relist the consensus very clearly coalesced around a redirect. While maybe unfair on the early votors, I find the opinions of users who come to a more mature discussion are usually the most informed and have the benefit of the whole source picture put up by the keep side. That they were unpersuaded by the keep arguments was what directed my conclusion

As I had stated in the AfD discussion, NPOL is for presumed notability. It does not supersede SIGCOV and the policy explicitly states:

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 general notability guideline.

The !votes to delete the article, a number of which appear to be drive-by !votes, do not provide any convincing argument against this. إيان (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse involved. Editors split 9 (keep) - 12 (delete/redirect) on leaving the page as a stand-alone page and deletes and redirect comments were grounded in policy. This is the second AfD of the subject, which was closed initially as delete in February 2026. In addition, 5/6 editors who commented after the relist were to delete or redirect the page (after sources were provided in the discussion and in the article). --Enos733 (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I have no objections to the revised close retaining the article's history. - Enos733 (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Endorse redirect but restore the deleted history behind it. Counting noses is a fool's errand. If the entire SIGCOV cited by the Keeps revolves around one election cycle, coverage in the relevant election article may very well be all that is encyclopaedically warranted. Enos733 said it best, and their !vote, along with those who agreed with Enos733, carries more P&G weight than that of the Keeps. That said, I see no valid argument to delete the history behind the redirect. If there's any copyvios or other policy violations there, those--and only those--revs can be deleted. But the rest should be restored, allowing anyone to selectively merge relevant content to the target while observing WP:DUE. Owen× ☎ 22:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
The issue with covering candidates in the election articles is that their traditional standardized structure is not beholden to contain the encyclopedic information that is covered by the sources. Where in 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 13 (an already overburdened article) would you suggest the policy positions of each candidate (which are often covered by reliable sources) go? There is plenty of pertinent and encyclopedic information in an article like this . Katzrockso (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I concur that there is a consensus against retaining a standalone article in the discussion, however, so overturning to redirect is the best outcome. Katzrockso (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Overturn to redirect (with history retained) largely per OwenX. I do see policy based consensus to not keep as a standalone article. However there is not consensus to delete rather than redirect, nor is there any valid argument to not redirect or to delete the article history. As the argument for not keeping the article is BLP1E, a redirect to that 1E is a very reasonable ATD. Frank Anchor 23:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment Spartaz, was there anything particularly concerning in the history that prompted the delete & redirect? This is a BLP, so the risk of something inappropriate in the history is much higher than entertainment content. I'd really like to hear the rationale behind delete and redirect, because like the above 2 !voters, I'm not seeing a compelling reason--or arguments in the AfD--to support delete and redirect instead of a simple redirect. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
To be fair, in retrospect I probably flubbed the delete part and would be prepared to undo that part of the close. I suspect that I was swayed by the split of later votes between delete and redirect. I stand by the clear consensus to redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Overturn to Redirect if this is what we should say to restore the history. The close of Redirect was correct, but I don't see a reason to delete the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I have restored the history below the redirect. In retrospect I think I was swayed by the post relist voters being split between delete and redirect but logically the correct outcome is to maintain the redirect and leave the history below. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Thank you, Spartaz. I believe this now addresses the only overturn issue brought up by participants other than the appellant. No objection to a SNOW close of this DRV. Owen× ☎ 12:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, this addresses all my issues and would make it easier for editors to recreate the article if Avila Chevalier wins her election and/or gains more significant coverage. I wouldn't object to a SNOW close either. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Hi Pretzel Quetzal and Spartaz: Thanks for restoring the history. :) As a keep !voter, this is better. Looks like consensus here remains against keeping.

I am frustrated at this consensus. To revisit my example of Graham Platner: That AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Platner) was closed as "no consensus" (with 22 keep, 17 redirect/delete). That's roughly the same ratio as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darializa Avila Chevalier (2nd nomination) (with 9 keep, 12 redirect/delete). The kept version of Graham Platner had 0 RS predating the election (of 27 sources) and 6 non-lede paragraphs about Platner's life before the campaign, most of which about his military job and bartending job. The deleted version of Darializa Avila Chevalier had 6 RS predating the election (of 45 sources) and 10 non-lede paragraphs about Avila Chevalier's life before the campaign, most of which about her public protests. (It hasn't been WP:10YT yet, but I remember the 2018 Marion Sims protest!) Beyond that: Both Platner and Avila Chevalier are DSA members whose campaigns represent a noisy fight between the socialist/progressive Left wing and liberal/centrist Right wing of the Democratic Party, and IMO are notable in their own right. TLDR: If the Platner article deserved "no consensus", then the DAC article deserved "no consensus".

I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS etc etc, but it's frustrating. Anyway, thanks for the undeletion. :) CopyleftEverything (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
If you are counting votes then you won't get that this was a genuinely no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
The arguments in both discussions are very similar. Both cite the same Wikipedia guidelines around sustained coverage, routine coverage, politician presumed notability, and enduring notability. I am engaging the substance and suggesting DAC's article should pass even more strongly. CopyleftEverything (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
FWIW, if Graham Platner were renominated today, I'd argue to delete that one, too. No consensus shouldn't be confused with a consensus to keep. pburka (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The difference is in the flow of the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Which itself presents a game theoretic problem, since many editors are partisan on these type of deletion issues, it incentivizes postponing a vote to show a change in opinion. Or it can equally just reflect a random change in the proportion of partisans from 'each side' (i.e. more non-elected politician lovers showed up after the relist and never would have been convinced by the delete arguments). Katzrockso (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I agree, this is a big challenge with candidates at AfD. There are incentives, especially of supporters of the candidate, to come out an support positions to keep the article, thinking it will either help their candidate or to argue about fairness: "their opponent has a page." The answer is not to discourage deletion discussions of candidates that do not meet our expectations of notability, but perhaps we should recognize that a closure in the middle of a campaign may not be the final word. - Enos733 (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
They are never the final word as circumstances might change at anytime and previous consensus will change as soon as the policy basis for inclusion will change. This has always been the way we handle these Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Why especially of supporters of the candidate but not editors who seek to suppress coverage of the topic? إيان (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
oh please. Suppress? That's real battlefield language and fundamental failure to assume good faith. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

!votes are not votes and consensus is not established by tally, but by evaluation of arguments grounded in policies and reliable sources. إيان (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I definitely share your analysis of the similarities between Platner and Avila Chevalier, and their representation of this wider fight within the Democratic Party. However I think Platner is much more notable than Avila Chevalier as he is running in a swing Senate seat, whereas Avila Chevalier is running to unseat an incumbent Democrat. Platner has been discussed a lot in national politics whereas at the moment I have seen little discussion of Avila Chevalier outside of NY and progressive circles. Obviously this could easily change, if Avila Chevalier were to win tomorrow it would (I think) be the first incumbent Democrat to be primaries (apart from Al Green in Texas where gerrymandering forced two incumbents to run against each other), and she would likely receive significant coverage. Actually a few hours ago, the Guardian covered the race as well , which would be further international coverage. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't really understand the rush to run these articles into main space. It would make far more sense to concentrate our editing efforts on those candidates who win their primaries or, god forbid, actually win the general. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I don’t really understand the reticence. If the sources to establish the notability of a subject are there, why not make sure the information is represented on Wikipedia and available to readers precisely when they are seeking to learn more about the subject in order to make an informed decision when they cast their ballot. إيان (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
One of the many things Wikipedia is not is an election guide. If we want voters to make informed decisions then we ought to include biographies of every candidate. That is one reason why I, and many other editors, believe that no candidates should be included (unless they're notable outside of election coverage). pburka (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
If they meet GNG they should have articles. إيان (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
إيان, you seem to be relitigating the AfD here. DRV is not AfD-round-2. We are here to determine whether the AfD was closed in accordance with a reasonable read of consensus there. If you believe the AfD participants erred in their assessment of the sources, start a spinout discussion at Talk:2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York. DRV is the wrong forum to conduct a source assessment.
If they meet GNG they should have articles - that is incorrect. WP:PAGEDECIDE makes it clear that not every subject that meets GNG must have a standalone article, especially if the subject can be adequately covered in another page. Unless you have any new argument relating to the closing of the AfD, I'll ask one of our regulars to close this DRV. Owen× ☎ 17:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Just responding to some comments here. Not opposed to closing this DRV. إيان (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I just want to make a point that GNG is not the standard we are using here and NPOL is the controlling guidance dusted with a generous sprinkling of 1E. There is absolutely no value in fighting an established consensus in an area is a contentious topic. You should really reflect on that and ask yourself if your enthusiasm is helping yourself or the project. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

GNG has a big carveout that you're ignoring: WP:NOT. pburka (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Overturn (to redirect, with history intact). There was not justification to delete the history. There was a clear consensus to redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Nobody suggested draftification? I think it should have been draftified. Unelected candidates for elections, who were not notable before becoming a candidate, are routinely required to remain in draftspace until they are elected. There are good reasons for this. I encourage proponents to ask for the history to be moved to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 June 20

20 June 2026

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks