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 redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2018#District 1. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga ( talk) 00:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

Political candidate who has not been elected and news coverage only details her candidacy. Meatsgains^{( talk)} 00:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 00:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep there appears to be some reliable source coverage on the topic. Delete per below replies. -- Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Reliable sources only cover her candidacy though. Meatsgains^{( talk)} 01:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Which is what the article seems to be about, so I don't personally see an issue. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 01:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Unelected candidates fail WP:NPOL and don't typically pass the WP:10YT test, and neither does Ms. Andrews at this time. SportingFlyer talk 01:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

That's not what NPOL says, like, at all. "...[unelected 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." Etzedek24 ^{( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record)} 02:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

But this coverage is about the election, not the candidate. This whole article is a WP:COATRACK. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Furthermore, consensus demonstrates the need to balance unelected candidate articles with promotional, BLP1E and recentism concerns. Just receiving campaign coverage isn't enough to get a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer talk 02:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep passes WP:GNG with multiple independent sources.-- TM 01:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete promotional article about a non-elected candidate. No significant coverage outside her campaign. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 01:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment - @ Namiba:, would you mind providing RS not covering her candidacy? Meatsgains^{( talk)} 01:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

There is no requirement that articles be filled with sources outside of a political campaign. If you can show me policy to that end, I will gladly reconsider my opinion.-- TM 01:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The only reason she has any coverage in the first place is because she is a political candidate. Are you saying her candidacy is what makes her notable? Meatsgains^{( talk)} 02:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I am saying that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". This is Wikipedia's policy. Nowhere does it indicate when or how or why a person received the significant, independent coverage. If we agree that such coverage exists, all other arguments against are simply a version of "I don't like unelected politicians having articles".-- TM 01:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply

This isn't entirely correct. The WP:GNG is simply a presumption - an article may nevertheless fail the WP:GNG if it falls under "what Wikipedia is not." Longstanding consensus is to redirect or delete candidate articles based off of several principles, including promotion, routine political sourcing, neutral point of view issues, and recentism/the "ten year" rule, which doesn't mean a candidate can't have an article - it just means candidates must typically go above and beyond just being a candidate in a recent election to have an article. Local candidates are rarely notable if they don't win, and in Wikipedia, once you're notable, you're always notable. If she's elected, she'll easily pass WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 01:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Where is the policy to which you refer? If it is not policy, as I said, it is simply your opinion. I think we should operate under the policies of the project and not the whims of a few editors.-- TM 11:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Look at any recent AfD for any candidate who is up for election this cycle. SportingFlyer talk 19:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Whatever you are referring to is not Wikipedia policy and can be overturned or changed upon further review.-- TM 00:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:NPOL, promotion as a candidate and recentism/ WP:10YR issues. SportingFlyer talk 07:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:NPOL states that unelected politicians can be notable if they pass WP:GNG. Re: recentism, the page you link to is a suggestion, not policy. It says so right at the top of the page.-- TM 20:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC) reply

*Keep and clean up. Based on non-interview sources in article she passes GNG. NPOL notes that even if they are an unelected candidate, regular (GNG) criteria still applies, which she passes from the sources in the article, imo. It is promotional in tone, however. That needs to be addressed. Redirect to the election she is serving in. While I still believe the article could stand on its own from GNG, redirecting is a better option and if she wins then we can easily make a proper article. Etzedek24 ^{( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record)} 02:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the discussion. Tried to reduce the promotional tone (unintended). She is notable in her role in the district over the past decade serving under the current Congressional representative focused on that. It is notable that she is running as well but moved that to the appropriate section. Westonnh ^{( _Talk)} 14:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to the election she is running in. Unelected official, who, although has coverage about her, passes no guidelines. The coverage is just her policies and brief mentions that she's running and nothing otherwise. The revision history will be kept if she wins so then the article can be restored. Her name may be a popular search term so it's best to do this. Redditaddict 6 9 03:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict 6 9 03:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect this is a clear case of a non notable political candidate with a campaign advertisement masquerading as a biographical article. Most if the article is non biographical political positions. Much WP:TOOSOON for an article on this candidate. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect. Unelected candidate. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete for subject failing WP:NPOL. Quite active in politics, per sources, but does not meet the Wikipedia threshold. A Redirect to the election in which she is involved would not be out of place. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2018. Right now the article is WP:PROMO, given that much of its content itemizes political positions that are probably not necessary content for a former campaign manager's bio but obviously important for promoting a political candidate. So, redirect to the election, with no prejudice against recreation if subject wins. Bakazaka ( talk) 16:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2018#District 1. The article is a WP:COATRACK promoting her candidacy as opposed to serving as a true biographical article. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 14:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect: per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Marquardtika ( talk) 17:06, 11 September 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.