Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darcy Burner (second nomination)

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. Cbrown1023 00:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy Burner[edit]

Darcy Burner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was listed on DRV, where the lister was self-admittely confused about the process regarding renomination of kept articles. The debate, which was withdrawn by the applicant, can be viewed here: [1] The original AfD can be viewed here (closed as no concensus), that took place about five months ago.

The reason for listing was:

Delete or Merge with article on Election -- WP:BIO. Proponents for keeping the article during the July discussion centered on her viability as a candidate in the November 2006 election. As the election is over and she has lost, her notability seems to have declined. AndrewSaint 06:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The concensus from DRV was to relist at AfD, so here it is. Eat your heart out - this is a procedural nomination, so no opinion from me just yet. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Former Microsoft employee and NN election candidate. We keep articles on politicians, not also-rans. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Islay. MER-C 05:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed candidate. Nothing else suggests notability. Montco 05:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The original AFD happened before the election; since she didn't win, perhaps it's best to remove it. --Dennisthe2 05:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Diane Farrell another congressional candidate went through several AfDs and I believe was ultimately kept. Burner was a real candidate in one of the most contested races this cycle and she nearly won. She may run again or she may run for another political office. Even if she dropped off the face of the Earth tomorrow an article about her would still be useful for anyone interested in Washington state's political history. Personally, I've used articles on failed congressional candidates in the past to learn more about the opponents current congressmen have defeated. GabrielF 05:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Considering she received 48.5% of the vote[2], local[3] and national[4] [5] press coverage. The Republicans considered her a big enough risk that WA-08 made it on their final push [6] and the Democrats included her in the first wave of their Red to Blue program [7]. She easily meets WP:BIO even if you don't agree with WP:C&E. Bobblehead 06:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 140,000 google hits for "Darcy Burner". Content is useful for history, if nothing else. Wikipedia is not paper rewinn 07:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete loosing candidate. There is news coverage about the election but none about her specifically is cited in the article and nothing suggests any notability outside the election so she should be mentioned in the election article and nowhere else. Eluchil404 08:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a handful of articles with meaningful links to this one. Why should those all become redlinks? — Sebastian 09:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This canditate generated signaficant media coverage thus making her notable under the primary criterion. Wikipedia not only keeps articles on politicians, but on notable individuals as well and the subject of this article clearly meets that definition. Ccscott 11:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable nationally-watched candidate in closely-fought election. Not all losing candidates are notable, this one is. --Dhartung | Talk 18:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Acquired national significance by attracting much soft money pro and con, her own surprising fundraising, and a top-tier progressive netroots candidate. That said, all these facts should be mentioned in the article (and the verb tenses revised). David Brooks 22:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a very high chance she will reappear in the Washington State political scene, potentially as a candidate in the 8th District again, or in some other capacity. Her political career is far from over. It would be foolish to delete at this time. If she is not considered significant, then Wikipedia will wish to reexamine its definition of what is significant, as it would appear to be far too limiting. Robert cruickshank 22:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Deletion does not mean obliteration If she does return as a high profile political candidate, we can just take the deleted article out of mothballs. "Delete" just means to remove from public view. Everything is technically kept on Wikipedia servers, even total nonsense articles that have been "deleted". Bwithh 02:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of verifiable sources with which to write at least a modest article. --Delirium 23:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for an article Bwithh 03:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. --Delirium 06:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Losing an election does not relegate you to the category of no longer notable. FinFangFoom
  • Keep. This was a close race for a long time. Her political career is far from over. Losing an election to the House of Representatives does not mean she is not notable, just like the hundreds of other candidates who lost. --Db099221 00:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Political also-ran. No evidence - just speculation - given that "her political career is far from over" Bwithh 02:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Absolutely mystifies me why anyone would have a problem with this being in an encyclopaedia that is not made of paper. Grace Note 10:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment John Lake closed the AFD early. I have reopened it - non-admins cannot close articles for deletion debates early unless they are non-controversial (i.e. nom-withdrawn speedy keep, or a unanimous keep after five days). --Coredesat 05:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Burner got substantial media coverage both nationally and internationally, and on that basis clearly meets the inclusion criteria under WP:BIO. There were dozens of articles in local, regional, U.S. national, and international press about her specifically, including coverage on the front page of the New York Times, a feature article in New York Times Magazine, a feature article in Vanity Fair, a feature article in the UK Guardian, and dozens of articles in the Seattle Times, the Seattle PI, the Tacoma News-Tribune, the Mercer Island Reporter, plus coverage on television both locally and nationally by way of CBS, NBC, FOX News, MSNBC, ABC, etc. She was one of the top Congressional challengers of 2006. Mere fact of non-election does not negate the notability criteria under WP:BIO, which she clearly meets. (Are the repeated attempts to delete politically motivated?) --Zentalon 23:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all articles about major-party candidates for Congressional seats, per GabrielF's point about historical research. JamesMLane t c 16:20, 20 December 2006 (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/Darcy_Burner_(second_nomination)&oldid=1137764467"