Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Watson (politician)

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 keep. Consensus is that WP:POL is not met, but WP:GNG is met, and therefore the topic is notable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Watson (politician)

Liz Watson (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Declined PROD. Candidate has some sources covering the primary victory yesterday, but those are more about the election and less about the candidate. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Wouldn't be against a redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Indiana, 2018#District 9. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. She just won primary with headline "Watson wins Big" on the front page of the print edition (I have yet to find a link for this, but of course a print newspaper is a reliable source still!). She has also been covered in articles highlighting the notable number of women running for Congress in 2018 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democratic-women-2018-midterms_us_5af2ecbce4b0a0d601e8a6ed?ncid=APPLENEWS00001 and there was a HuffPost article highlighting her victory as a challenge to conventional wisdom that progressives can't win in swing districts. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrat-liz-watson-wins-indiana-primary_us_5af21fbae4b0aab8a789f8b4?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarykitty (talk • contribs) 17:25, May 9, 2018 (UTC)
  • Like I said, there's coverage of the campaign, but barely any coverage about her. Winning the Democratic Party nomination does not help her meet WP:NPOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • How is it that being covered in articles regarding women and progressives in the closely-watched 2018 US Congressional elections is not "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."? What is the difference between an article about a person's campaign and about the person?
      • It's more about how we define "significant" coverage. This article, for instance, mentions her once, in passing. Much of the coverage of her isn't so much about "her" as it is about the greater national political climate and landscape. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Appears to be a case of TOOSOON. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom, at least for now, per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NTEMP. Skimming United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Indiana,_2018, similarly-situated otherwise-non-notable primary contenders don't have their own articles, either. If she wins, an article about a Congressman obviously passes WP:GNG but an otherwise-non-notable person doesn't become so by virtue of contending in or even winning a House primary.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Her primary election victory has received a LOT of media coverage, from national news sources as well as local. I think she may just pass WP:NPOL. EAWH (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh huh, so the election is notable, but not necessarily the candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But some of these non-local articles are writing extensively about the candidate, too. Here's the Huffington Post article^[1]: "Watson, 43, returned to her hometown of Bloomington to run for office after years of progressive lawyering in Washington. Most recently, Watson served as labor policy director for Democrats in the House, where she helped craft $15-an-hour minimum wage legislation. In a previous role as the director of workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center, she worked closely with groups like the Working Families Party to pass Maryland’s paid family leave and gender pay equity laws. “One thing that distinguishes Watson as a pretty unique candidate is not just having the progressive platform, but that she’s had a career of experience designing policy that affects people’s lives,” Dinkin said."EAWH (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. This is a ***textbook*** case of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." [[PPX]] (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. NPOL #2 is about mayors and city councillors, not unelected candidates at any level of government. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your interpretation, but nowhere does the text of the policy make that distinction. [[PPX]] (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not independently notable from her campaign. The question I ask in these instances is, in ten years, if unelected, would she still be notable based on the political coverage received, in order to satisfy the "significant press coverage" prong? At this point, I don't think so per WP:GNG. No problems with the redirect. SportingFlyer talk 21:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Indiana,_2018, per standard practice. The coverage of her victory in the primary appears mostly local and about the race rather than her, i.e. WP:MILL. There's no claim of notability other than this run, she does not appear to have held any other elected office. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and/or redirect to the election article. People get Wikipedia articles by winning the general election and thereby holding office, not just for being candidates — and the amount of reliable source coverage being shown here is not enough to deem her candidacy a special case, because every candidate in all 435 electoral districts across the entire United States (and every candidate in every statehouse district, and every candidate in Canadian elections, and on and so forth) could always show every bit as much coverage as this. No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat, but nothing here is enough to already deem her encyclopedically notable as of today. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom and per WP:POLOUTCOMES. "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010." --Enos733 (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although she has only won the primary so far, she's received a significant amount of discussion and coverage, including at the national level, and the sourcing of the article passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems more than enough to satisfy GNG for me. Govvy (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG which is all that matters in the end. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree regarding WP:GNG being met - she isn't notable except for the fact she's a candidate, and the majority of the sources on the page discussing this are from the night she won the primary. There's still not enough here to make her independently notable as a candidate. The other sources are fine since they flesh out the article, but they don't show notability on their own (like her marriage article: this will be on Wikipedia long after she loses, if she doesn't win the election.) SportingFlyer talk 22:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to article on this House race. Editors who wish to do so can try to change the WP:NPOL guidelines so that major party candidates for the November U.S. House elections get an automatic pass. However, we do have rules. And I am not seeing extraordinary coverage of her candidacy, nor am I seeing any notable accomplishment before she ran for Congress, or anything else in terms of her bio or the press coverage that gets her past WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The presence of national coverage of the campaign, which includes biographical details, satisfies me that this is one of those rare cases of a politician who has never held elected office (and whose claim to notability stems entirely from being a candidate for elected office) clearing WP:GNG. Steve Smith (talk) 03:16, 25 May 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.