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. There are two arguments made here for keeping this article, both of which are flawed. The first is that being a "major" candidate (whatever that means) for election in California is in itself grounds for notability. This is contradicted by WP:NPOL, which states that "an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". I have therefore discounted !votes solely based on this argument.

The other argument is that her work in the autism advocacy makes her notable. I am seeing an implied argument that there are sources that cover this in detail, but no sources are presented in the discussion and User:Martinp and User:Bearcat make compelling and unanswered arguments as to why the sources in the article are not suitable for this purpose.

That being said, there are some suggestions for redirect which isn't really discussed in depth here. This close is therefore without prejudice against redirecting or merging some content to other articles if someone is willing to put in the work. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 00:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Notable for having come in 2nd place (with only 12.7% of the vote) in the June 2012 primaries against Dianne Feinstein, allowing her to advance to a runoff against Dianne Feinstein in November of 2012. Barely mounted a campaign, which resulted in a 25% loss margin. Conclusion: candidate fails WP:NPOL. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 13:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Clearly fails WP:NPOL. No other credible claim to notability. AusLondonder ( talk) 21:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Emken was a major candidate for U.S. Senate in California, a state of 40 million people. I would also argue Emken is notable for her autism advocacy, and has received consistent coverage of this before, during, and after her campaign: [1], [2], [3], etc. MB298 ( talk) 23:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The references you provide do NOT make her notable as an autism advocate. They make her notable as an Anti-vaxer. If Wikipedia had an article called List of anti-vaxers then she would definitely be notable enough to be mentioned in such a list. Note that other notable anti-vaxers, such as Jenny McCarthy have Wikipedia pages due to notability that does not involve their anti-vaxer positions. I would think that to get to be notable enough just as an Anti-vaxer, she would have to be as notable as Stephanie Messenger and Sherri Tenpenny in the anti-vaxer movement. -- Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 07:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Being a major party candidate who did not make a dent in the election (losing by 25%) means she fails WP:NPOL. The size of the state is irrelevant. -- Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 07:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Being an unelected candidate for office provides no notability per WP:NPOL. AusLondonder ( talk) 23:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Unsuccessful candidates for political office not notable for any other reason are not notable per WP:NPOL's initial two criteria. The key test is whether she has major coverage across a variety of reliable and independent sources, which she does not. Four links are dead, and appeared to just be candidate aggregators. One (autism speaks) is not independent of her and the Los Angeles Times article is just noting her candidacy. The only meaningful part of the article is her work on Autism, which in itself doesn't appear notable and is essentially reliant on a single source. Maswimelleu ( talk) 10:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election they didn't win — if you cannot show and properly source that she cleared another notability criterion for some other reason besides her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because of the election itself. But this does not properly source any evidence that she cleared GNG for her autism work; that entire section is referenced exclusively to primary sources, not reliable independent ones. And no, the fact that she ran and lost in a Senate race rather than a House of Reps seat does not automatically make her candidacy more notable than the norm — a Senate candidate has a better chance of either already having enough preexisting notability to qualify for an article or having her coverage expand beyond the WP:ROUTINE and expected norm that all candidates for all offices always get, but there's still no automatic inclusion freebie for all non-winning candidates at that level of office: it's still WP:GNG or bust. Bearcat ( talk) 18:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Okay, the strong consensus here seems to be delete, so I'd propose redirect to United States Senate election in California, 2012 as it was before I restored the article, in order for the history to be preserved. MB298 ( talk) 23:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I am less inclined to keep the article merely because of the subject's candidacy. I am more inclined to keep it because of her advocacy. Wikipedia is full of citizen advocates who are or were helping to blaze new awareness of certain ideas (see Bernard Rimland and others). While I disagree with her opinions within her advocacy, there is no doubting that she was advocating in ways which made Autism Speaks both admired and despised by many others worldwide. And it is that effective advocacy that has earned the subject broad attention, influence and notability. 73.131.228.245 ( talk) 11:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply

What matters, for the purposes of getting a Wikipedia article, is whether that advocacy earned her reliable source coverage in media. But whether she did or not, this version of the article isn't showing any evidence of it — so in order to be kept on the grounds of her advocacy, the article's sourcing would still have to be massively overhauled. Bearcat ( talk) 16:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep for the coverage subject has received solely for her advocacy on Autism. Cllgbksr ( talk) 21:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

That would be fine, if anybody were showing any actual evidence that she's received coverage for her advocacy on autism. We can't just assume that such coverage probably exists; somebody has to actually show that it does exist, preferably by actually adding it to the article before this discussion closes but at least showing hard data from a real research effort in this discussion — but we can't simply assume that the necessary degree of coverage exists if nobody shows any evidence of it. Bearcat ( talk) 02:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep due to her autism advocacy, but source the material and move the election material farther down the article. Who was the second person to climb Mt. Everest? My point is that people don't remember 2nd place finishers and her election loss does not make her notable. Knox490 ( talk) 07:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The article isn't showing any evidence of reliable source coverage about her autism advocacy. Being an activist is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of enough media coverage for her activism to clear WP:GNG, but none is being shown — all we've seen so far is simple assertions that such coverage might exist somewhere that nobody's shown evidence of. Bearcat ( talk) 14:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. As others have said, her political activities are not themselves notable. It was then raised that she might have sufficient notability as an autism advocate/anti-vaxer. However, the 3 concrete references raised (by MB298) treat this only as passing mentions, not enough to write a reasonable article on the subject. I looked around for a few minutes on Google and didn't find other sources. So I conclude that she doesn't quite reach notabillity in that vein either. Therefore suggest deleting, without prejudice to recreation at some point in the future if enough material on her to establish notability, for instance on anti-vax or anything else, appears. Martinp ( talk) 01:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Same reason for me: "Emken was a major candidate for U.S. Senate in California, a state of 40 million people." -- Seneca Quayle ( talk) 20:38, 6 May 2017 (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.