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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Conor Lamb (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Candidates do not meet WP:Notability without some other notability. This individual does not meet that criteria. Mpen320 ( talk) 19:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Conor Lamb is an active U.S. House of Representatives candidate in an upcoming special election in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District scheduled for later this year, and Lamb has been nominated by one of the two major U.S. political parties in the special election in question. Lamb's candidacy has received considerable traditional media coverage, as others have noted.

-- AaronCamp ( talk) 14:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• KeepThis individual is the current candidate for a US Congressional seat. When this article was first created last month, he received coverage by publications such as the Washington Post and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. In the past few weeks, his candidacy has been covered by The New York Post, Daily Beast, CNN, Fox News, Mother Jones, Washington Examiner.

Prior to running for office, his legal career was covered by the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/marine-pleads-guilty-to-lying-in-sexual-misconduct-case-says-he-crossed-the-line/2017/04/13/d3fd9cf6-2064-11e7-a0a7-8b2a45e3dc84_story.html, Military.com https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/04/14/major-gets-90-days-brig-lying-sexual-misconduct.html, APNewswire https://www.apnews.com/bbd02fca17cf4ac89d1f82eb7d1a336f,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cazer78 ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete The coverage has nothing to do with Lamb, it is coverage of a special election, which happens with all special elections, since they are looked to as potential bell-weathers and referendums on various administrations. The coverage of Lamb as such is routine, and does not change the fact that canddiates for congress have been long agreed to be non-notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district special election, 2018. There is no notability outside of that one election, but it is a useful redirect term for that election. - LtNOWIS ( talk) 01:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LtNOWIS ( talk) 01:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district special election, 2018 for now. If he wins the election then he gets an article.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 02:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect. NPOL fail for now. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep due to the ongoing, INDEPTH national coverage Lamb is drawing. Yes, he's only a candidate, a young, aspiring politician with all the right moves in his bio (JAG; assistant U.S. Attorney; looks nice in a jacket and tie) but that would not get him kept. What does is the coverage, Daily Beast, Dec. 15: Is This Marine Veteran the Next Doug Jones? and lots more in national publications, not to metionn international coverage like The Times (of London)(oops) Democrats pick Marine vet, former prosecutor Conor Lamb as 18th Congressional District special election candidate, which does not generally do reported, in-depth coverage of races in the colonies. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Except you've just made an argument to delete this. All of this coverage is coverage of the election centered on Conor Lamb. In the case of the Times, they are covering the two respective nominations with a focus on Lamb (as he's the underdog). Also, the Times you linked to is a newspaper in Beaver, Pennsylvania owned by GateHouse Media in Perinton, New York.-- Mpen320 ( talk) 00:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• WP:NPOL3. states that mere candidates "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'." and we do keep candidates when a race is drawing sufficient non-local attention, Tim Canova and Lee Busby come to mind. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I have read WP:NPOL3. Tim Canova had a scholarly career as a law professor in addition to prior activism outside of his campaign. His article also has 41 citations covering both his campaign and prior activism. By contrast Lamb's article has 13 citations. The only citation that does not cite the race itself is a WaPo article that cites a brief quote from Captain Lamb with no other elaboration.-- Mpen320 ( talk) 23:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Just fyi, this: [1] is how Tim Canova looked when it was nominated for deletion. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Borderline Keep He appears to have been profiled as an ADA as well as his campaign. -- RAN ( talk) 16:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• The problem with this is that his role as an Assistant U.S. Attorney would not establish notability.-- Mpen320 ( talk) 00:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• The references determine notability, not the job title. No one is arguing that his job title is inherently notable. -- RAN ( talk) 00:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Lots of coverage and former US Attorney. Clear keep. Casprings ( talk) 20:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• He was not a United States Attorney. He was an Assistant United States Attorney. A district's United States Attorney is a presidential appointment. An Assistant United States Attorney is a civil service appointment. For more on the subject see United States Attorney.-- Mpen320 ( talk) 23:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Unelected politician. Carrite ( talk) 19:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPOL. The only claim of notability is as a candidate in a special election (assistant US attorneys generally aren't notable), and it's not a particularly high-profile special election. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Pennsylvania's_18th_congressional_district_special_election,_2018#Democratic_convention where the subject is mentioned. Anything worth saying about the candidate could be done in a couple of sentences there. A plausible search term, but insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. Does not meet WP:NPOL as un unelected candidate, and there's nothing better just yet. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• I would note that he continues to receive national coverage. See here and here. His coverage is wiread and while he is WP:N. While his WP:N comes form one event, the amount of coverage clearly justifies an article on his on. I think this should be keep.
• Keep Since the last discussion of this article Lamb has received much more national-level coverage. Searine ( talk) 18:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Easily meets GNG. Salon, Reuters, Washington Post, etc. Coverage includes role as Assistant U.S. Attorney, as well as congressional candidate. BLP1E does not apply. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep meets GNG. MB298 ( talk) 20:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep the article meeths the WP:GNG policy, and there is a fair amount of national coverage that is ongoing and relevant. Therefore more than just routine election coverage. Ilyina Olya Yakovna ( talk) 21:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Meets GNG. That's all we need. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Well, to be accurate, Andy, we also need to check against BLPIE and WP:NOT. But I'm confident that's not an issue in this case. -- RexxS ( talk) 00:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Meets GNG, has ongoing, relevant national-level coverage. Kekki1978 ( talk) 04:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Definitely keep. I'm shocked to see this even be proposed for deletion. Should Wikipedia have deleted the page on Doug Jones a month before that special election? - Gregory N, 3:28 PM EST 1/22/18 —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG, center of substantial national coverage. David Baron ( talk) 21:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Connor Lamb seems to me to meet the WP:GNG. The article itself also seems reasonably well-sourced from a mix of respectable news outlets and has been expanded and improved since initial nomination for deletion. Williw ( talk) 00:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• (I moved this from talk page -- MB298 ( talk) 23:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)): "Keep- I regularly wiki politicians to see what their education, work life, positions are. I do not live in Pennsylvania, so maybe I don't belong in this discussion... However, I do follow politics pretty closely, and am extremely grateful when I can get a bio on somebody. Young, yes...politically untried, okay...but please keep the info out there for people who do research candidates. Not being diligent in looking at the character of a candidate is not a good thing for a politically active person.-- Barbbuxtonnc ( talk) 22:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)" reply
• We currently have eleven KEEP comments in a row. Is that enough to close this discussion and remove the 'Considered for deletion' box from the top of Lamb's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory N ( talk • contribs)

It was relisted on the 21 January 2018 so procedure would be to close the discussion on the 28 January 2018, which is 7 days after listing. Regards. Ilyina Olya Yakovna ( talk) 14:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Considering he's currently got a reasonable % chance - around 39% according to Predict It ^[2] of being elected to congress in 7 weeks, definitely makes sense to keep the article for now - would suggest revisiting after the special election
• Keep. Lamb has currently got a good chance of being elected to Congress, and the special election has attracted a lot of attention so far, with the DCCC and NRCC spending and Trump himself campaigning here. District101 ( talk) 22:51, 26 January 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.