Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Irey

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 no consensus. W.marsh 14:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Irey[edit]

Failed US house election canidate. Lost by a huge margin; she had 39% and Jack Murtha had 61%.[1] She got media attention in the election for attacking Murtha's character.[2] County commissioners are not notable. Arbusto 04:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I changed the percentage (was 22%, is now 39%), per the cited reference. The 22% figure is the winning margin of Murtha's, not Irey's percentage of the vote. I personally don't think that changes anything, and am voting (below) for redirecting to Murtha's page. John Broughton | Talk 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ...did you really just cite two sources about her and then immediately turn around and claim she isn't notable? -Amarkov ^babble 04:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every single 435 house election will have coverage on the people who ran via election results, which includes independents of minor political parties. Should every single failed congressional canidate from all parties from all elections be included on wikipedia? Arbusto 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... yes, if there are sources... -Amarkov ^babble 04:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean IF? Every single person of every single party is listed at CNN.com and each state election website. Every single canidate, by definition has been interviewed by a newspaper and has a mention at databased like CNN.com. Every failed house canidate is not notable. Arbusto 05:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was pretty clear about what I meant. In my opinion, something is notable if it has multiple reliable secondary sources about it. -Amarkov ^babble 05:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bar down my street has several reliable secondary sources about it because it sold to a minor and got its liquor license revoked, by your standards it deserves an article. Hell, my father owns a liquor store and its been in the newspapers and such on several occassions as well, so it apparently deserves an article as well. Fortunately, verifiability is not the only requirement for something or someone getting an article, it also needs to be notable which this person is not. Delete. --The Way 00:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you are confusing verifiable which is what the sources give you, i.e she does exist and she did run, with notable, i.e. has she done anything other than just stand and engage the media during that standing. Specifically for politicians the guidelines state

Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature.
Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability

so she ran and failed (and what politician doesn't bad mouth the opposition) so non-notable--Steve _(Slf67)^talk 05:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Steve. TJ Spyke 05:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If she's in stories about losing to Murtha, it's everything to do with Murtha and nothing to do with her, since the actual subject of said stories is, in fact, Murtha. --Calton | Talk 06:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent and WP:BIO. We remove articles on failed candidates for New Zealand, Canadian, South African, Indian, etc. elections unless they're otherwise notable; American failed candidates should not be accorded special status. --Charlene 08:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of any notability once her concession speech was over. I expect we'll be seeing a lot of these now that the US elections are over, and any candidate whose only notability was the campaign should be removed. (I live in a district that is considered such a lock that, amazingly, no one ever even created an article for the Democrat who volunteered as this year's sacrificial lamb. One less to delete.) Fan-1967 14:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I'm going to incorporate a bit of information from the article into the Murtha article, and suggest redirecting the Irey article into that. John Broughton | Talk 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, at least for now. You guys are seriously suggesting that a House of Representatives candidate who got a non-trivial number of votes, and lost the election that happened only three days ago should be deleted? Like lots of marginally-notable recent news events, she should probably stick around for a few weeks or months at least. -- Plutor ^talk 15:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She received heavy media attention in her race to oust Murtha.--Tdl1060 16:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I want to vote delete but will abstain for now. Her notability is primarily derived from her opponent rather than anything she did. All references to her relate to the race rather than the candidate. So she in and of herself is not notable as a candidate. I do not know if someone can establish any notable action as a county commissioner (which is a reasonably powerful job in PA since counties are governed by a tribunal ith minimal checks and balances). If so I could consider supporting a keep since the totality of her political career would push her over the top in my opinion. Montco 19:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Steve, failed political attempt. Nuttah68 22:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Her notability didn't disappear Wednesday morning. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- she's been a county commissioner (an elected position) for 10 years, and was the youngest person and only woman ever to be elected so in that county; and for other reasons as stated above: look at the totality of her career, not just a single failed Congressional race. (Other odds 'n ends: over 250K g-hits; "Diana Irey came as close as anyone in the past 32 years to defeating Murtha" [3]); etc. -- Sholom 13:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, especially User:Plutor
Keep. Sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in our encyclopedia. Yamaguchi先生 22:36, 14 November 2006
Strong Keep. Notable and certainly verifiable. Note that the high-traffic election site www.electoral-vote.com started linking to our articles on both incumbents AND challengers for congressional seats this year; it's a sign that this coverage is EXPECTED by the world outside AfD. Unfocused 05:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't keep based on coverage you expect will soon be available. It can be recreated then, but it may well lack sources NOW. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The coverage required to verify is included in comments above. The point I'm making is that the outside world already expects us to have at least basic coverage of all congressional challengers. Un focused 05:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't realize that was what you were saying. It's still not an argument for keeping, but the coverage required is indeed mentioned above. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The outside world is our audience. If not for them, who are we writing for? This is certainly a valid argument for keeping because it is central to the mission of the project! Un focused 06:13, 15 November 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.