Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Denney

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 California, 2018#District 1. Almost all votes are for redirect or delete. Per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP, I find that a redirect is the best option here. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Denney (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)

Fails WP:NPOL: only assertion of notability is being an (unsuccessful) candidate for elected office. Kurykh (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete she lost in the general election. Defeated candidates for congress are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — a person has to win the election to pass WP:NPOL, and otherwise qualifies for an article only if either (a) she can already be shown to have already have had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, or (b) she can be extremely well-sourced as having received a volume and depth and range of coverage that went far enough beyond the merely expected to give her candidacy a credible claim to being special. But neither of those things are shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The guideline at WP:NPOL does not state that a politician has to win an election to be notable, just that unelected candidates need to pass WP:GNG -- without any special conditions for extraordinariness stated. The long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Centralized discussion on the notability of political candidates seems to have very mixed opinions on the potential notability of reasonably-well-sourced non-extraordinary unelected candidates, instead of a clear consensus. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamyshade: thank you for this. I wasn't aware of the recent centralized discussion about notability of political candidates before reading your comment, and it looks like it's not too late for me to participate. Shortly after I made my "Rename" suggestion below, there were AfD nominations for the CA-10 and CA-39 election articles for 2018. Now that Josh Harder is the presumptive winner in CA-10, it's arguable that the content of the CA-10 2018 article should be upmerged into the Josh Harder page and/or Jeff Denham article, and possibly much of the content of the 2018 CA-39 article could be upmerged into the Gil Cisneros and/or Young Kim article. Elections that result in the notability of the winner seem they should be considered wp:notable events to me, and thus, I'm still firm in my belief that California's 1st congressional district election, 2018 would also be notable, but your comment convinced me to add "Keep" to my opinion below. -- RobLa (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename (or Keep) agreed that her WP:Notability is largely through association with the CA-01 race in 2018. Rather than delete the article, I believe we should rename the article to California's 1st congressional district election, 2018, and adapt the format of the article to fit the title. Her biography and her 2018 story are important to the election, and worth noting. This election was similarly notable to California's 10th congressional district election, 2018 or California's 39th congressional district election, 2018. -- RobLa (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remain incredibly unconvinced that we need a standalone article about each individual congressional district's individual election results. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remain incredibly convinced that you are wrong. I would be delighted to have that conversation over at Talk:United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_California,_2018#Splitting_off_election_articles, where I've detailed my rationale. That is a far more appropriate place to have that conversation. -- RobLa (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In no way was this candidate's challenge of Doug LaMalfa the equivalent of Denham-Harder or Kim-Cisneros. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this as well. This wasn't a notable race. SportingFlyer talk 00:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pretty clear failure of WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. No reason to turn this into an article about a non-competitive election when there is already a page that covers all U.S. House elections in California. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:GNG, WP:NPOL. Happy with a delete and redirect to the house elections page. SportingFlyer talk 23:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename The original article in question has multiple citations and passes the WP:NPOL policy you all keep going on about. I'd like to see some attempt by the delete voters to enumerate the harm caused by leaving the article. Emceeaich (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL is passed by holding office, not by running for it and losing. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The current content and depth/range of sources in this article is somewhat thin, but Wikipedia:Deletion policy says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." I took a quick look for potential sources, and I found many newspaper articles from a range of regional papers with in-depth analysis of why this campaign was unusual for this region and interesting in the context of patterns in the overall 2018 midterm election. I see a reasonable argument for this topic passing WP:GNG. I haven't yet found any larger national papers such as the LA Times, Washington Post, or New York Times covering her campaign in detail - with that, I would have a stronger Keep vote, but I think this is reasonable enough coverage for GNG.

• "She doesn't have the odds. But could Denney still have a shot against LaMalfa?" (Record Searchlight, September 25) - analysis of larger political context.
• "Vandals dress Democrat as a Nazi and deface Republican’s signs in California House race" (The Sacramento Bee, October 1) - interesting details to include in the article as part of the story of the 2018 midterm elections.
• "As even long-shot Democrats harvest huge numbers of campaign contributions, Republicans brace for an onslaught" (LA Times, October 10) - brief mention of Denney's campaign.
• "Audrey Denney, Doug LaMalfa battle for 1st Congressional District seat" (The Union, October 18) - has depth on her policy positions.
• "Election 2018 Misinformation Roundup: ‘Problematic’ Text Messages and Doctored Mailers" (New York Times, October 30) - the last example is about the Denney campaign ("She recently discovered that the campaign for her opponent, Representative Doug LaMalfa, was using a very familiar-looking photo with some prominent, misleading alterations").
• "Candidates with Episcopal roots cite faith as inspiring, guiding campaigns for Congress" (Episcopal News Service, November 2) - not suitable as a completely independent source, but would support coverage of personal story.
• "Congressional incumbent Doug LaMalfa beats Audrey Denney: 5 takeaways from the race" (Record Searchlight, November 7) - analysis of why this was an unusual challenge to the incumbent and a sign of change in the region.
• "After defeat by Rep. Doug LaMalfa, Audrey Denney isn’t done" (Enterprise-Record, November 7) - discussion of impact.
• "LaMalfa acknowledged Denney’s fundraising as ‘unprecedented’" (The Siskiyou Daily News, November 8) - additional analysis of why this was unusual for the region.

Dreamyshade (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Dreamyshade: Those sources all seem to be about the election, rather than the candidate who ran in the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of these sources have substantial details about Denney and her work, including her campaign work, as part of describing her campaign. Combined with the existing sources in the article, the information would be sufficient for putting together a reasonably substantial article about her. I also included a few sources with brief mentions (such as the LA Times article) to show that she received some broader notice outside of the regional papers. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018. As a failed candidate, she would not meet WP:NPOL. Sources brought forward so far are all within a campaign context, which I would particularly argue is a case of an extended WP:ONEEVENT situation. Bkissin (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being a candidate alone does not provide notability. All sources above are about the election campaign rather than Denney herself, but some could certainly be included at United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_California,_2018#District_1. Reywas92^Talk 07:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018. This is a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates who have lost their election. These pages should include more content about the race, including more about each candidate. --Enos733 (talk) 17:59, 16 November 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.