Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priscilla Lord

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 delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Lord

[edit]

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

Priscilla Lord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Unsuccessful candidate for U.S. Senate; per NPOL, simply being an unelected candidate for political office does not automatically confer notability. None of her other roles in life—teacher, real estate investor, city councillor, attorney—have garnered significant coverage either. She comes from a politically active family (see Miles and Jim), but notability is not inherited, of course. DanCherek (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her reported impact on the general election (including the commentary), as well as the national news coverage is what makes this seem not WP:COOKIECUTTER and more than WP:ROUTINE coverage. I did look at other articles to consider whether merger might be feasible, but neither the election article nor Franken's article seem to have a place for her distinctive role. Only adding the bit about her ad being repurposed would lack key context without her article. Beccaynr (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Political candidates are going to get media coverage during the campaign, but that does not constitute WP:NOTEABLE in and of itself. Failed political candidates are not notable simply because they were in a campaign. There’s nothing else notable here. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — and Goth4prosper is correct that the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself a "GNG"-based exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL, because every candidate in every election always gets some campaign coverage literally by definition. So the notability test that a candidate has to pass is not "does some campaign coverage exist": it is "does a reason exist why her candidacy should be seen as uniquely significant, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance", but that hasn't been shown here. GNG does not just count the footnotes and keep everyone who happens to surpass an arbitrary number: it tests the sources for the context of what they're covering the person for, and discounts some types of coverage as much less notability-making than some other types of coverage. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason why the national news coverage and commentary stood out to me is because the context (MPR, 2008) passes the 'ten year test', e.g. The Case of Al Franken (New Yorker, 2019), The Real Story About The Allegations Against Al Franken (HuffPo, 2019) Beccaynr (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's more about Franken, to be honest. SportingFlyer T·C 00:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that she happened to run against Al Franken, a decade before the allegations that forced him to resign, doesn't make her enduringly notable. Literally by definition, every candidate who loses every election always lost it to the person who won it — so the fact that she ran against Al Franken doesn't inherently make her more notable than the people who ran against Dianne Feinstein or Claire McCaskill or Roy Blunt or Susan Collins or Cory Booker or Jeff Flake or Thom Tillis. If she had been a key figure in the allegations that led to Franken's resignation, then she might be notable on those grounds — but these sources don't show that, since neither the New Yorker nor HuffPo sources even mention her name at all — but no, she doesn't pass the ten year test just because he resigned ten years after beating her in a primary, if she isn't directly involved in the reasons why he had to resign. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, the connection is that there was national and statewide commentary during the primary and general election due to her highlighting concerns about Franken that about ten years later, had a major political impact, even without her direct involvement. Her role seems more distinct than the typical losing primary candidate, not just because of her reported impact in the general election and national news coverage, but also due to what eventually happened after she made it a notable theme of her campaign. Beccaynr (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the post-resignation sources don't explicitly state that Priscilla Lord played a meaningful role in Al Franken's resignation (which they clearly don't, because none of them even contain the words "Priscilla Lord" at all), but instead you have to combine the sourcing for what she said about him in 2008 with the sourcing for what happened in 2018 to infer a connection between the two things that the sources haven't already placed on the record for you, then what you're doing runs afoul of our rule against synthesizing sources to reach original research conclusions. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:10YT is described as a "thought experiment," e.g. "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?", and there does not appear to be any requirement for Lord to be directly involved with Franken's eventual resignation - it's just that her role still appears relevant after a primary and general election campaign that also had national and statewide coverage and commentary. I don't necessarily think it is OR or synthesis to suggest that Lord still appears to be relevant due to what eventually happened to Franken's career, e.g. "Not all the people of Minnesota have been taken by surprise by the events of the past three weeks, however. [...] During the [2008] election campaign Republicans attempted to turn his old jokes against him, but in vain. The Democrat squeaked home by 312 votes after an eight-month legal battle." (Guardian, 2017) If the thought experiment is about 'relevance,' then there appears to be a basis to suggest that there is relevant encyclopedic content available that supports keeping the article. Beccaynr (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2021 (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/Priscilla_Lord&oldid=1011814066"