Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Salazar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The consensus is that WP:GNG is clearly met, and it is irrelevant whether WP:NPOL is met or not. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Salazar[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Julia Salazar (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)

Young political activist and first-time candidate running against incumbent as long-shot for New York State Assembly seat in a Brooklyn district. Zero notability or press coverage before campaign. Candidacy has drawn attention in online left-wing news/commentary sites (many NYC based). ROUTINE general press coverage of campaign until a pair of small brouhahas erupted in local and Jewish media over the fact that she was campaigning as "An immigrant" brought to the U.S. from Colombia by her parents as "a baby". It turned out that she was born in Miami. (U.S. citizen mother, Dad immigrated from Colombia.) She also campaigned as a Jewish Latina. But, as the New York Post put it, "even in politics, it’s rare for someone to manufacture imaginary ancestry." E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Apologies for tone, focus. Struck.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a really difficult one and I don't think the nomination makes a particularly good argument against the article. One of the sources even notes "Julia Salazar has earned media attention that most state senate primary candidates could only dream of, including serious treatment in The New Yorker, and friendly profiles in New York magazine, The Forward, The Intercept, and Vice." It passes WP:GNG, but WP:GNG is only a presumption of notability. What makes this difficult: the article as it is written violates both WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTSCANDAL and to a lesser extent WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. While she's been well-covered, her notability derives from the fact she's in the same faction as Anastasia Ocasio-Cortez (leftist news) and because of a number of contradictory or unforced errors she's made (rightist news). There's no election page to redirect to, and it will be difficult to rewrite it as it is in a NPOV. I also note the election she's running in occurs September 13, so she will either win the primary (and therefore likely the general, and be notable per NPOL) or lose the primary and be a WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer talk 10:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the specific text in WP:NOTPROMO that it violates? --Nbauman (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a little more focused on controversy than it was when I voted, but the "advocacy" prong still applies. SportingFlyer talk 20:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think might be some confusion about who or what is being advocated for, as much of the article is neutral. The same editors who want to delete the article are the ones adding the abundance of weight to the controversy section, which is the only portion used as a soapbox. She was notable before the controversy, unlike say the Republican in Florida who was a fly-by-night national news story for the fake college degree. I think the final version of the article would severely tone down this controversy as it's not that big a deal in the big picture. But finding the article at fault for violating PROMO might just have been the intention all long, as again, it's the same actors on multiple angles (the NPOL nom, the AfD, and the abundance of "controversy"). JesseRafe (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to draft - WP:TOOSOON, failing WP:NPOL. This is a candidate in the primaries to the state senate (the primary in September, the actual elections in November) attempting to unseat an incumbent democrat in the primary. To qualify for NPOL - she would need to have won the actual state senate seat. Prior to the election cycle (e.g. if you do a BEFORE time-ranged to 2017, filtering out all the sidebar hits from the election) she was not notable - an appearance at Glenn Beck not withstanding. All the coverage we have is from the election cycle - while it is more voluminous than the typical state senate primary candidate due to issues regarding her identification/identity (as well as some coverage of the Democratic Socialist wave in which she is given as an example) - it is definitely less than the typical US senate or congress hopefuls (for the actual elections) that we routinely delete. Barring her winning the election, there's little expectation for this coverage to be WP:SUSTAINED in this WP:BLP1E situation.Icewhiz (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON is an essay. It's not a policy or guideline. We have no obligation to follow it. Even so, when I read it, I don't see how WP:TOOSOON applies. If you wait long enough, the election will be over, we will have missed our opportunity to give readers the information they want at the time they need it, and then it will be WP:TOOLATE.
WP:NPOL specifically allows Salazar. "an unelected candidate for political office ... 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". So your arguments don't apply. --01:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Once you're notable in Wikipedia, you're always notable - that's not necessarily the case here if she loses and falls out of the news cycle. If her campaign were notable for all time, this would be an easy keep, but it's not clear - claiming WP:TOOLATE implies this fails WP:PROMO.
  • WeakStrong Keep on the basis of WP:GNG - she's had substantial coverage in the Intercept and also in Haaretz which is international in scope. I don't think WP:BLP1E entirely applies due to the current heat going on within the Democrats regarding establishment vs DSA candidacy, which this ultimately ties into. Concede she's marginal, but I tend to lean toward keep in marginal cases, especially when GNG conditions are met. Simonm223 (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOVING to DRAFT space makes a lot of sense; it can be brought back to main space if she becomes a figure of national interest, or actually wins a seat in the legislature.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is Wikipedia:Sour grapes. Above allegations are false on their face. Nominator was presented with multiple sources of national press coverage before this controversy generated more coverage, which they chose to ignore on the Talk page. There's dozens of links on the talk page. It passes both GNG and NPOL. Salazar has been the subject of indepth reporting by national press like The New York Times, Washington Post, Salon, Jacobin, the New Yorker, New York Magazine, Washington Times, Village Voice. Her campaign has been prominently mentioned in articles not specifically about her/her campaign by other national press -- CNN, The Cut, etc. This is very unusual and significant coverage of a state legislature candidate. Two editors have been trying to destroy this article with various means, tagging and templating it over and over, rather than simply make it better. One technique employed by the nominator has been to try to overload the article with recent press about the controversy and then claim that the article is all about the recent news cycle and should be deleted. Both these editors have literally ignored every source, local and national, presented that makes no mention of the recent controversy and continue to insist she's only notable for the controversy. Easily passes GNG with national mentions and passes NPOL to boot. Links on article talk. JesseRafe (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @JesseRafe: WP:NPA please. Care to elaborate on how a never-elected individual who is running in the Democratic primary for NY State Senate district 18 passes WP:NPOL?Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument would probably be the major press coverage prong, ignoring the problem no article on talk page or in the main article is older than two months old. SportingFlyer talk 13:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You can make a case of a political candidate passing GNG without passing NPOL - usually on the basis of notability prior to the election cycle (and the invariable coverage it brings). You can also try to make the (very rare) case of notability via press coverage from the election cycle only, without meeting NPOL. However, per JesseRafe this individual "Easily passes GNG with national mentions and passes NPOL to boot" - we can dicker over GNG, but I don't see how this individual passes NPOL in any way, shape, or form.Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether she passes NPOL is moot if she passes the GNG marker. And that's very nearly a WP:SNOW level of obviousness. This is a person with substantial national and international coverage in reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is bad faith request, Icewhiz. I very clearly and explicitly made the NPOL argument on the Talk page yesterday. You chose not to engage with the sources and notable, national press coverage, which began in earnest in May. JesseRafe (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please state explicitly which WP:NPOL criteria this individual passes - or strike your assertion.Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are six articles from five high-profile outlets where she is mentioned but is not the subject of the article, which I believe satisfies NPOL provided I understand it correctly.
--MainlyTwelve (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are less significant than it may appear, almost all coverage is in in New York City-based publications, the INDEPTH is in niche publications like Jacobin (magazine), and Tablet (magazine). But she is only mentioned as one of several candidates in articles like, "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Historic Win and the Future of the Democratic Party". ALL coverage of Salazar is campaign-related. And Note that Ocasio-Cortez's first page was started only AFTER she actually one a primary (for a seat in the House in D.D., not a seat in Albany, New York.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basically any insurgent candidate, particularly from the left, is going to garner the most coverage from "New York-based" publications as they (here The New Yorker and the New York Times) are national publications of record that happen to be based in New York City. She's received in depth coverage from other outlets, but I included those sources, where she is not the main subject of the articles as I was responding to Icewhiz.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note, however, that one of the NYTimes articles ran in the local edition NOt national ; and the 2nd NYimes story, like the New Yorker (published in New York) story merely mentions her as one of several progressives who might win in a surprise upset of like Ocasio-Cortez did. Something to keep in mind is that New York figures get a disproportionate boost in such stories because they are convenient examples, similarly, you'll notice that when the Washington Post needs a photo and interview of a national trend (psychologist using new therapy, school instituting new rules,) the example picked will almost always be located in Maryland or Virginia. Nevertheless these stories are not about Salazar, they are about several progressive candidates who might pull off upsets, citing her as one example.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"these stories are not about Salazar, they are about several progressive candidates who might pull off upsets, citing her as one example." That's irrelevant. According to WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." --Nbauman (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to user:Icewhiz's request, "Please state explicitly which WP:NPOL criteria this individual passes - or strike your assertion" --
WP:NPOL: 'an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people 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".' Will you now strike your objection? --Nbauman (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per JesseRafe and discussion on talk page.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a no-brainer. Full-length profiles in award-winning nationally and internationally distributed publications including
sail past WP:NPOL's standard for being a major local political figure who has received significant press coverage, where A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists—not to mention the GNG.
Additional full-length profiles in nonpartisan local media [6][7][8], and WP:SIGCOV in The Times [9] and sources like Fox News [10] and The Times of Israel [11] make it clear that, pace SportingFlyer, any NPOV problems are WP:SURMOUNTABLE. FourViolas (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the additional information provided by FourViolas I am changing my !vote to a strong keep. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not suppose that FourViolas intended that comment to be ironic. But Editors wondering why this longshot candidate got a sudden, small spate of coverage in early August should scroll to the bottom The Intercept, here: Looking to Land the Next Blow Against the New York Democratic Machine] and read the "correction" where it is explained that Salazar lied to interviewers and on her campaign webpage, calling herself a “proud immigrant”, when, in fact, she was born to a U.S. citizen mother in Miami, Florida. She also told a highly imaginative stories about her father and his family being Jewish, which got a coverage in Jewish publications, and the fact that she campaigned as "an immigrant" was picked up by some right-wing media (for the left-wing-Dem-candidate-telling-lies angle.) However, all or almost all original coverage (there are some echo rehashes) is by New York City-based journalists writing for New York-based publications. Like the New Yorker and the New York Times, The Nation, the Village Voice, Gotham (magazine) and Vice (magazine) are written and edited in New York, New York. Major national media based elsewhere, The Atlantic, and the Chicago Tribune, along with many NYC based national media including NBCNews and the Wall Street Journal have ignored her. New Jersey's Star-Ledger couldn't be bothered to send a reporter across the bridge. This is a local New York City story. It is an amusingly provincial town.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your opinion of her honesty is irrelevant to WP:GNG notability criteria. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Your evidently strong opinions about her heritage notwithstanding, all the policies require is that these articles be written by journalists and published in reliable sources (the kind that issue corrections). Even if we imagine that The Times, The Forward, The Intercept, and most of Israel's major newspapers have all been writing about "a local New York City story" because they enjoy losing subscribers, their coverage amply satisfies WP:AUD—a requirement that doesn't apply to articles about people in the first place. FourViolas (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the coverage is fueled by a composition of false information and follow ups on those lies. Nothing more than one event and clearly nothing that adds up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is wantonly false. All the links on the talk page are for national press that was before this controversy. JesseRafe (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far the delete !votes seem to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT - a reminder that, as FourViolas and I keep pointing out, it doesn't matter why somebody has gotten over the WP:GNG line. If they're notable, they're notable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Simonm223: I rather dislike your characterization of my delete vote. While she has received substantial coverage, we still have WP:NOT which no one is discussing, and she is subject to a WP:BLP1E concern. There is no indication from the sources her campaign will be notable if she loses - she'll just have a candidacy that received a lot of press. I do agree with you the nomination feels like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but there are still a number of concerns with this article, and I want to make sure it can be renominated for deletion once some time passes if she were to lose the nomination and doesn't receive any further significant coverage.SportingFlyer talk 04:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – See more of my discussion on the talk page
    Basically the only things I said there that matter are the following:
  1. "If an article passes GNG, it is notable. It does not need to also pass WP:NPOL or WP:N or WP:POLOUTCOMES. It has received significant coverage if it passes GNG, therefore, it is notable."
  2. "The requirements for GNG, or a simple rule of thumb, is that if the subject has multiple articles written about him/her/them/it in national publications, it meets GNG, and they can not be just passing mentions nor can they be solely local news sources. Salazar meets these requirements with an article written about her in WaPo and several pieces of info (not just trivial) about her in NYT."
While the nominator made a good point there that this didn't happen until after the candidacy, I feel that this does not matter. See the AfD discussion for Robert Kelleher; he was only notable due to his candidacies. GNG is the general guideline, and there are no second opinions to that. There is no discussion here that Salazar meets WP:GNG. She is notable and the article should be kept. There is no valid reason against it. Redditaddict69 17:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding nomination – EMG stated that the only coverage was on left-wing sources. Her controversies are also on Fox News and New York Post. She has coverage from across the political spectrum on several national news sources. Many are not just passing mentions, but give paragraphs of detail on her and some are articles solely about her candidacy. Redditaddict69 17:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not misquote me. Read my comments before making erroneous assertions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 17:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 17:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's also important to contextualize Salazar as being part of a substantial shift within the Democrats between the Centerist party establishment and the center-left DSA. Not to give people bad ideas, but much of Salazar's notability comes from the same well, notwithstanding the inevitable muck-raking, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Just read Wikipedia:Notability (people):
This page in a nutshell:
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
The discussion above, and the article's Talk page, have clearly demonstrated significant coverage. I don't see anything in the discussion above refuting that conclusion. --Nbauman (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the umpteenth time I feel like I'm saying for the umpteenth time, all of the links of national press at Talk:Julia_Salazar#Sources_for_WP:NPOL are before the current controversy. There's been so many comments that should be dismissed for wantonly misstating this objective fact. Despite the fact that much of the current article is about that controversy, that is not the sole source of notability in the least. Multiple national publications have covered her. JesseRafe (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The scope and breadth of the reliable and verifiable sources about her meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Salazar has been the subject of coverage in the national and international media. I believe she passes WP:GNG regardless of whether she passes WP:NPOL. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Facially passes WP:NPOL; I'm unable to discern an actual rationale for deletion in the nomination. He tries to imply there's been little coverage, which is false, and then adduces various non-policy-based reasons to dismiss the coverage as somehow irrelevant ("routine," "small brouhaha," the sources are supposedly too liberal or too "NYC based," etc.) This doesn't convince. TiC (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actual rational for deletion is our long-standing rule against keeping articles on candidates for office unless they have the sort of accomplishments and sourcing that would have supported notability even before they ran for office. Consider, for example, Alma Hernandez, a young, liberal, Jewish Latina running for a seat in the Arizona state legislature and getting coverage very similar to the coverage Salazar is getting (local media, plus Jewish and Israeli media). Doesn't have an article yet because coverage appears to be campaign related. And we don't keep articles on candidates with no prior notability. WP:PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's coverage by the media of a third country, published today: Guardian Interview.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: I would suggest you read WP:OSE. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to say this more clearly, but that rule is not a policy or guideline. In fact, it conflicts explicitly with WP:NPOL's statement that Just being [...] an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people 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". If you think this guideline should be changed, hold a RfC and see what the broader community thinks, rather than simply ignoring its previous decisions. FourViolas (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If you MERGE, you must either delete most of the Julia Salazar content, or make the merged article bigger and more unwieldy. I think that (on the basis of coverage in WP:RS) that Julia Salazar is too important to condense and delete like that.--Nbauman (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it seems a little rich that you, as nominator, are changing your !vote to merge when it's become clear that you're in WP:SNOW territory. How about you do the right thing and just withdraw the AFD. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her notability is from the coverage she has received, not automatic candidate/pol notability. She might not have passed the routine-coverage bar before this controversy, but she passes it now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep the article itself could use improvement and expansion of her positions, but she has received extensive coverage over both her Jewish identity and socialist politics. I do agree we need to be cautious about WP:NPOV, WP:NotNews and WP:Promo but I think we can handle that :) NY elections are in less than 2 weeks anyways and her run will be notable nonetheless. Shushugah (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are 11 Keeps, and 3 deletes, while this is not a vote, there is clearly no consensus to delete. Shushugah (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep based on the arguments of JesseRafe, FourViolas, and Redditaddict69. Since I created this article earlier this month, the subject has received additional national coverage for a variety of issues. I also find it very odd that as the article creator, I was never notified about this AfD. It strikes me a little as bad faith. Trinitresque (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My error and my apology. I ought to have thought of that; I rarely nominate articles for deletion, and I simply forgot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is running against an Hispanic-American incumbent in the September 13 primary election for the Party's nomination for a seat in the state legislature. Page showcases our persistent problem with election-cycle partisan campaign enthusiasm. If she loses, this brief summer of coverage will be WP:BLP1E. Fails ten-year test. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I am still for KEEP per my comments made a week ago (basically saying the nom is false – she is included in both left and right-wing sources and many of them, especially nationwide publications). Moreover, the comments made since then which add to the points made before appear to make the argument for KEEP more convincing. Redditaddict69 15:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing my "merge" opinion per ONGOING national coverage. Article still needs editing for POV because recent non-local coverage is of journalists who continue to find new, verifiable details of her personal history about which she told falsehoods as part of her campaign. And the POV editing is likely to be an ongoing issue. Nevertheless, the 1st hit on a news search this morning on "Julia Salazar" is a national story on Fox News (I know, I know I also saw today's story about how terrible Fox is in The Atlantic, but FOX is a large, national network,) Dem socialist candidate Julia Salazar's mother and brother expose more inconsistencies in her bio]. What I truly do not understand is why her partisans want to keep this page up. But, well, it's a lot of coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC) I now note that the Fox story is merely a rehash of the recent story in City & State.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is has nothing to do with "her partisans" but everything to do with her notability prior to and independent of this minor scandal that will soon be over. This is a fact which you chose to ignore time and time again. It was detailed on the Talk page before you AfDed it. JesseRafe (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: - I don't think you should be withdrawing your nom. Coverage of interesting candidates and all the more candidates with seemingly "juicy" inconsistencies and scandals is par the course for elections. If she ends up getting elected - she'll be notable (just by the dint of our SNG, but it will also lead to on-going coverage - elected politicians tend to generate SUSTAINED coverage of their positions and voting records). If she fails in her election bid and returns to doing whatever mundane thing or another (and doesn't become notable via a subsequent successful run, or some other event) - she'll be just another failed candidate with a scandal that fails BLP1E and the 10Y test.Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a policy-based vote. (Note also that there have been no polls in this race, and the pundits are not speculating.) That said, I could see an argument for rolling this over for a week. After the primary on Sept 13., it will be clear that she is either a candidate or the state legislature, or a candidate known only for losing a state legislature primary. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 5 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julia_Salazar&oldid=858292913"