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 speedy delete. Per WP:G7 and no keep !voters here. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 04:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Lisa Mandelblatt

Lisa Mandelblatt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only claim of notability is being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election whose primary hasn't even happened yet. This is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL -- a person has to win the election and thereby hold office to clear that criterion, not just be a candidate in a primary -- but this makes no claim that she has any preexisting notability for any other reason, and it's not referenced to anything like the degree of reliable source coverage needed to deem her candidacy a special case like Christine O'Donnell's: this is based on a bunch of glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of the broad overall phenomenon of women taking the political plunge because Trump, a sprinkling of purely routine local coverage of the primary race itself and her wedding announcement, and primary sources and blogs that cannot assist notability at all. Which means nothing here demonstrates that she's somehow more notable than the thousands of other people across the United States who are competing right now in primaries for next year's Congressional midterms. Of course, no prejudice against recreation a year from now if she wins the seat, but nothing here already gets her an article today. Bearcat ( talk) 17:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now, as she fails WP: POLITICIAN. If someone writes a neutral article about the 2018 election in New Jersey's 7th Congressional District, then a redirect can be created. If she wins the seat, then a biography of her can be written. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete exactly as stated above. Clearly fails NPOL at this time. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as above. User:CobaltBlue616 —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• KeepDelete (see below) She passes the WP:GNG because of consistent attention in national media such as US News and the Christian Science Monitor and Spanish-media, plus she's the leading Democratic challenger in an important swing district (which has been getting much attention nationally). She's an increasingly important national voice in Daily Kos. Considering that her likely opponent, Republican Leonard Lance, has a seriously spammy and lengthy promotional article, it's only fair to have both sides represented as per neutral points of view. She's not just a candidate but an activist for women's rights, with attention in the Washington Post. Meets the GNG.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia explicitly does not judge "we need an article" on the basis of "their opponent has one". (And also geez, looking at the article-to-reference ratio there that looks like WP:BOMBARDMENT to me.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • First off, your first two refs are the same AP article -- and that's a passing mention. The Spanish language ref doesn't seem to be -- but that's also just a brief mention. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Being "the leading challenger in a swing district" is not a notability criterion. To get a Wikipedia article, a person must either hold office, or be properly demonstrated as already having enough notability under some other criterion entirely independent of their candidacy — but the first isn't true yet, and the second isn't being demonstrated here at all. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to provide "equal time" to all candidates in an election: our responsibility is to have articles about holders of notable political offices, not candidates for them. And the fact that a person's existence gets namechecked in sources that are not about her, or that she's the bylined author of a Daily Kos piece, don't assist her notability either — she has to be the subject of a source, not just mentioned within a source whose subject is something else or the bylined author of the source, before that source counts a whit toward building a WP:GNG claim. And no, keeping an article about the incumbent but not the challenger is not a partisan bias just because Lance is a Republican and Mandelblatt is a Democrat — because in the very next district over, it's the Democrat who has an article and the Republican who doesn't, for exactly the same reasons. Bearcat ( talk) 23:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, I think your arguments are good. Switching to delete. Let me say this though -- she's a strong candidate, and I'll bet she's the next congressperson after next year's congressional election.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
      • I'm glad and as I don't see any point in stringing this out in this case, I'm going to place a {{db-author}} tag on the article accordingly. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:40, 12 November 2017 (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.