Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harriet Hageman (2nd nomination)

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 SNOW Keep. This article has had a rather tumultuous history. Its first AfD was closed as redirect and a later deletion review (with an intervening edit war (and full protection) between restoring and expanding the article and redirecting it based on the prior AfD) endorsed the outcome and sent the article back here. Ordinarily, that would counsel letting the AfD run its full course. However, it appears that the consensus has changed in a somewhat dramatic manner (while not dispositive, I note that a number of participants from the prior AfD have also participated here and argued in favor of keeping the article) given a large amount of recent news coverage in reliable sources of the article's subject such that this AfD is clearly going to be closed as keep as the subject now passes our general notability guideline. Mifter (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Hageman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harriet Hageman and the subsequent Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 August 17, the community is asked to determine whether this U.S. politician is now considered notable enough, per WP:GNG, for her own article. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 06:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Sandstein 06:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If she was not notable before, she certainly is after beating Liz Cheney in the primary. She has major features on her in NYT, NPR, etc. as of last week. Chagropango (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. Eg

1. https://pcrecordtimes.com/article/hageman-looking-to-serve-wyoming-people A serious introductory article from 2018

2. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/us/politics/harriet-hageman-trump-cheney.html Deep coverage from a leading national newspaper.

3. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/who-is-harriet-hageman-liz-cheney-wyoming-trump Deep coverage from an international publication.

The GNG-meeting coverage of Hageman trumps WP:NPOL, as is even explicitly written at NPOL. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep Seeing that she's about to be a sitting member of congress might as well keep. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 11:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the last AfD there has been more significant independant coverage to warrant meeting WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG, even as an unelected candidate. Novemberjazz 14:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes GNG in light of major features in multiple publications. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 19:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A case of recentism as a postive. Significant reliably sourced coverage of her campaign in national media outlets far exceeds the routine coverage that unelected candidates typically accrue, making a credible case for passing WP:NPOL criterion #2. Sal2100 (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG, especially due to the nature of the political win and the amount of coverage in reliable sources (even though it's not something that meets WP:NPOL). - Aoidh (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Totally obvious keep, anybody who has gotten to the point of running for political office is notable enough for a Wikipedia page. Joe (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:JoePhin, this will be a “keep”, but your rationale is false. Many candidates fail WP:N and WP:NPOL. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. You may be right. I should say that most people who've gotten to the point of running for political office will be notable enough for a Wikipedia page, and this is an obvious case of that. Joe (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep per all above. A lot has changed in the last two months since the last AFD as evidenced by comments in the DRV and this discussion. Very clear pass of GNG and NPOL now. Carson Wentz (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2022 (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.