- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Laura Fjeld ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate in an election. As always, this is not an automatic inclusion freebie per WP:NPOL -- a person has to win the election, not just run in it, to be considered automatically notable as a politician -- but there's no other claim of notability here, and not nearly enough reliable source coverage to deem her candidacy more notable than the norm: the references here are two primary sources, one raw table of primary results, and two pieces of the purely routine local coverage that any candidate for any office could always expect to receive. This is not enough media coverage to consider her candidacy a special notability case. Bearcat ( talk) 04:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 04:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 04:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2014, where her candidacy is mentioned. In the future, WP:BOLDly redirecting to the election article in these cases, instead of going to AfD, may be a worthwhile endeavour. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- There have actually been a considerable number of cases where RFD has weakened the notion of any standard consensus that every candidate should always be kept as a redirect to the election they ran in — for one thing they sometimes end up sitting on top of more notable people with a stronger claim to
primary topic than the candidate has, and for another it's not always clear that any non-trivial number of people is ever actually going to search for a person who was notable only as a non-winning candidate (and in the rare event that somebody did, the election page would turn up in the search results anyway.) So while it's still not a thing that can never happen, it's not a thing that should automatically happen for all articles about non-winning candidates either — it's a thing that requires a more substantive reason than just "her name is present in that other article", so it requires discussion about its value rather than just arbitrary boldness. Not that I'm fundamentally opposed to it if consensus prefers that here, but it's not a thing that I would just do on my own without a consensus behind it.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- I generally agree with Bearcat here. However, I don't have a great universal test for when a redirect is more or less appropriate. Perhaps a first step would be to boldly move a losing candidate to a Name (Country Politician) naming style rather than just Name before a redirect would help with the primary topic concern. -- Enos733 ( talk) 18:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- There have actually been a considerable number of cases where RFD has weakened the notion of any standard consensus that every candidate should always be kept as a redirect to the election they ran in — for one thing they sometimes end up sitting on top of more notable people with a stronger claim to
primary topic than the candidate has, and for another it's not always clear that any non-trivial number of people is ever actually going to search for a person who was notable only as a non-winning candidate (and in the rare event that somebody did, the election page would turn up in the search results anyway.) So while it's still not a thing that can never happen, it's not a thing that should automatically happen for all articles about non-winning candidates either — it's a thing that requires a more substantive reason than just "her name is present in that other article", so it requires discussion about its value rather than just arbitrary boldness. Not that I'm fundamentally opposed to it if consensus prefers that here, but it's not a thing that I would just do on my own without a consensus behind it.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Strong delete Her campaign was so insignificant, it does not seem to merit any mention on the page of her opponent, which focuses entirely on the primary election. The privious Republican had not gotten less than 61% of the vote since the late 1980s, so this was not a truly contested seat. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- 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.