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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

Subject is a local politician running for Congress. Subject HAS received considerable local press coverage, but as far as I have been able to tell, it is mostly in relation to her Congressional candidacy. I haven't been able to find much that would ring the notability bell. At present I believe the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. Any claim to serious notability seems based on her candidacy which POLITICIAN excludes as a notability granting criteria. Unless I missed something significant in the coverage (always a possibility) it seems to run afoul of WP:BLP1E. And frankly, as written this article just looks like a WP:COATRACK. A Prod was previously removed. Let me know if I'm missing something here. Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• As I've said many times in similar discussions, any candidate in any election will always receive some press coverage, because local media have an obligation to grant equal time to candidates in elections within their coverage area. Our standards here, however, require a person to have a much more substantive claim to encyclopedic notability than the mere fact of putting their name on a ballot — while there are rare cases where a person can become notable enough for a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate (the textbook example being the national media firestorm that engulfed Christine O'Donnell), in nearly all cases a candidate has to actually win the election, not just run in it, to become notable under our inclusion rules. There is quite simply no strong claim of notability here — so while she'll certainly be entitled to an article if she wins the seat, she isn't entitled to one just for being a candidate. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 22:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete, subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. However, I would actually disagree with the nominator when they says that "Subject HAS received considerable local press coverage". The coverage looks pretty routine to me and certainly less substantial than other candidates for the House who don't have articles (not that they should either). Tiller54 ( talk) 15:52, 12 May 2014 (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.