Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Scott (politician)

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Scott (politician)[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candidate for political office (ran for the state legislature in Washington state) with no other apparent claim to notability. Certainly fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Third-party coverage limited to a smattering of articles in local papers, most of which are no more than cookie-cutter election stories (listing candidates or publishing results) and mention her only in passing. The rest of the refs provided are from her campaign website, her facebook page or simply election results from the local county auditor's website. I can't see how she's passes the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" test. Lincolnite (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Election's over, go home. And take Washington's 21st Legislative District, House 2 election, 2010 with you. Mandsford 15:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Loosing an election does not void one's notability, just as running does not make one notable. Scott was first noted in the local media as a public speaker and continues to be notable as such. She is listed as a politician to disambiguate between multiple Elizabeth Scotts. Though being a candidate has enhanced her profile considerably, it is not her primary notability (though she's running again so basically still is a candidate). The local paper pieces in question follow the race week after week, cover much more than just names and election results, and do constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" under Wiki standards, personal feelings to the contrary. Comparable articles are cited in her opponent's wiki page, so let's be consistent in applying our standards, shall we? Keep. Wikibojopayne (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: for the sake of clarity, let us be clear that her (former) opponent, Marko Liias, is a member of the state legislature and therefore meets WP:POLITICIAN. There is therefore no basis for comparing the two and the question of consistency doesn't arise. --Lincolnite (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The comparison with her opponent concerned what's used as a reliable source under Wikipedia rules, not on the notability of the person per se, so the question of consistency stands. Wikibojopayne (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In case I wasn't clear, it wasn't the reliability of the local paper or the county auditor's office that I was questioning. Both are undoubtedly "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The question surrounds whether they amount to "significant coverage". And on that point the comparison with Marko Liias is irrelevant. --Lincolnite (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmmm... Well you do have a point there. Mandsford makes a good point below, too: if Scott and Liias are equally notable, all things being equal, and neither of them would make it without Liias being in office, then it makes sense to keep Liias and nix Scott. If I had my druthers, Wikipedia would err on the side of inclusion, provided people were reported enough in reliable sources. But it seems there's a lot of subjectivity involved in the interpretation of the rules; so I'm glad there is this vetting process to see if Scott is worthy of deletion, even if my favored article does get deleted in the end. Peace, Wikibojopayne (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Would Marko Liias be notable if we didn't have a rule that state legislators didn't fall under a "subject specific guideline" described in WP:POLITICIAN? Probably not. However, because of that rule, running for office may not make one notable, but winning a particular office does make one automatically notable. I didn't write the rules-- if I had, I would have left state and provincial legislators out in the cold-- but those are our rules. Mandsford 13:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsuccessful candidate for office. No other claims to notability apparent and coverage is merely routine election coverage in local press. Valenciano (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BLP1E applies (one time losing candidate, no previous notability). Abductive (reasoning) 12:26, 27 November 2010 (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.