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. ✗plicit 23:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patti Garamendi[edit]

Patti Garamendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Notability is not inherited, so she isn't automatically entitled to an article just because her husband has one -- but this article is neither making nor reliably sourcing any credible claim that she would pass WP:NPOL in her own right.
The strongest notability claim here is that she's been an appointed bureaucrat in a state government department, which is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about her work in that role -- but otherwise, what we've got here is that she's been an unsuccessful candidate in state legislature elections, which is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, and recently won a "local woman of the year" award that is not nationally or internationally prominent enough to make its winners "inherently" notable for winning it.
And all of this is referenced entirely to primary sources, like her staff profile on the government department's self-published website and raw tables of election results and the self-published website of the presenter of the local award, with not even one piece of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage shown whatsoever.
This all reaches far enough back into the past that I'd be perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Sacramento-area media coverage than I've got can find enough proper media coverage about her work as a public servant to get her over the bar, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and California. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No serious claim of notability, nor can I find any by independently searching. She's been an unsuccessful congressional candidate a few times; has been named "woman of the year" of one county (said naming apparently being within the discretion of a single state senator); served as an "associate director", a "deputy secretary" and even an "assistant deputy administrator" (but not even either assistant nor deputy) of some notable agencies and organization (or at least, in the case the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service, a subunit of such an agency or organization), but never an actual director / secretary / administrator. If there's a colorable claim to notability here, I can't see it. TJRC (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. At least one of the claims in the Dodd "Sacramento Woman of the Year" item is highly inaccurate, so that citation is obviously non-independent and more of a political favor to her husband. Unless significant coverage and notability can be demonstrated from truly independent sources, this thrice-failed political candidate who last ran for office 32 years ago, and who has been a very minor functionary and the wife of a Congressman, fails notability. Persingo (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject clearly lacks independent notability. Failed in politics; fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. And the general notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not independently notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2024 (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.