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. J04n( talk page) 17:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Kim A. Myers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual running for the House. Fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix ( talk) 03:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete If Myers wins the election she will be notable, but she has not yet won the election, and if she looses she won't be, so we should delete the article and recreate it if she wins in November. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Myers is notable as a candidate due to the Congressional district's notability as a battleground race expected to receive national attention and one of a handful deemed a tossup nationally. She is also notable as heiress to the founder of a major American sporting goods retailer. McNurphy ( talk) 04:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Candidates in "battleground" or "tossup" races do not get any special exemption from having to meet the same inclusion standards as any other candidate. WP:CRYSTAL disallows us from basing an article's includability on predictions about what the person might attain in the future. And notability is not inherited, which means being an heiress to a company constitutes no special notability. Bearcat ( talk) 18:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Coverage of Myers, already a local political figure as County Legislator and school board president, in major political sources regarding the competitive race might fulfill WP:POLITICIAN criteria #2. While criteria #3 states that unelected candidacy does not guarantee notability, again the designation of her race by the Cook and Roll Call election reports as one of very few contested elections for an open House seat in the United States should be considered "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". McNurphy ( talk) 04:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

County legislators and school board presidents don't get Wikipedia articles on those grounds — since covering local politics is the local media's job, all such people always get media coverage. So purely local coverage of local politics is not enough to get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, because no local political figure of any kind would ever be "non-major" enough to fail NPOL if purely WP:ROUTINE local coverage were enough. "Major local political figures", for our purposes, refers to one of three types of people: (a) mayors of significantly-sized cities, (b) city councillors in global cities of the Toronto, NYC, London, Tokyo class, or (c) figures for whom the coverage expands far beyond the purely local. But none of those have been satisfied here. And no, Cook Political Report rating the race a tossup does not constitute significant coverage; the page, for example, doesn't contain any content about her except for a glancing namecheck of her name on a site that contains glancing namechecks of every single person running as a candidate anywhere in the entire United States, so it does not constitute evidence that coverage about her is nationalizing. She has to be the subject of nationalized coverage for it to get her over the bar, not just have her name mentioned on web pages that fail to do anything more than mention her name. Bearcat ( talk) 18:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. As always, candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and reliably source a credible claim that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides her candidacy itself, then she must win the election and thereby hold office to get an article because election. But nothing here constitutes a credible claim of notability, as being a local officeholder at the county level is not enough in and of itself, and being ranked by pundits as a possible winner of the seat does not make her candidacy more noteworthy in and of itself than anybody else's — and the volume of reliable source coverage here is not enough to claim that she passes WP:GNG in lieu, as the only sources here that are substantive are purely WP:ROUTINE local coverage of her in a local context. No prejudice against recreation if she wins the seat in November, but nothing here is enough to get her an article today. Wikipedia is not a PR platform for aspiring congresspeople's campaign brochures. Bearcat ( talk) 18:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete I'm inclined to agree with the delete camp. The individual does not have any notable coverage aside from WP:ROUTINE regarding their nomination. They come short on WP:SIGCOV, but I would say that the article may be recreated without prejudice should they become elected as outlined in WP:POLITICIAN. Mkdw ^talk 04:11, 10 August 2016 (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.