Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Lash

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Tom Lash

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Tom Lash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP.Unsucessful third party candidate for a congressional seat getting approx 3% of the vote. No GNG sources or anything close. North8000 (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one — but this isn't even attempting to claim that he has any preexisting notability for any other reason besides an unsuccessful candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:NPOL because the article is about “Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.” also from WP:NPOL “A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists” which Lash has.

Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage. So the existence of the merely expected campaign coverage is not in and of itself a "surpasses GNG and is therefore exempted from NPOL" card — campaign coverage builds toward permanent notability only if it expands to such a deeply unexpected (much more nationalized than the norm, much more enduring than the norm, etc.) degree that his candidacy stands out as a special case of significantly greater notability than the thousands of other candidates who didn't get articles. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NPOL as cited by Bearcat. Further, none of these sources establish notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comments Expanding / adding background info on my nomination, the one race that he ran for was for one of the 435 US congressional seats (I.E. ran in a local election in an area that includes 1/435th of the US) and in that race was not the Democrat or Republican nominee and only received 3% of the vote. Also to emphasize, the only coverage was of the unsuccessful run and there is no GNG-suitable coverage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet NPOL, so we're left with a politician whose candidacy is only routine coverage of a race. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NPOL and has only received routine coverage of his two rather unsuccessful campaigns. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• I actually prefer a redirect to California's 46th congressional district where he is listed in the vote totals. Not enough coverage to support and independent article, but fairly mentioned in the context of the election his campaigns were part of. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

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.