Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lou Bruner

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lou Bruner

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

WP:BLP1E of a person notable only for having made a few controversial statements during her campaign as a not-yet-elected candidate in a forthcoming election. This was initially tagged for notability, which was reverted on the basis of "sources exist", but it's almost entirely WP:ROUTINE local coverage in local media that have an obligation to cover local politics — and while there are a couple of non-Texas sources shown, the volume of nationalized sourcing is not sufficient to make her candidacy encyclopedic in and of itself. Nothing here exempts her from having to pass WP:NPOL by winning her seat, because none of it makes her anything more than a temporarily-newsy WP:BLP1E. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. Despite what the nominator asserts, there is little routine about the coverage her. When a candidate like this receives substantial coverage in national media, including profiles in The New York Times and the Washington Post, notability is clearly established. As NPOL itself states candidates "can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'", as is the case here. A campaign is not a single event under BLP1E, and an extensive history of controversial commentary isn't either. Dismissing the Times, the Post, Slate, Breitbart, Salon and The Daily Beast as "a couple of non-Texas sources" may not be as far removed from reality as the article subject's commentary, but it's not appropriate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of a candidacy is WP:ROUTINE until such time as it credibly demonstrates that the subject is someone that people will still be looking for information about 10 years from now. Very few candidates ever pass that test — Christine O'Donnell is the baseline for how much coverage of a candidacy for office it takes to make that candidacy a notability claim in and of itself, and this isn't even approaching that volume. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, and the O'Donnell article is hardly the minimum standard for inclusion -- it's more or less the high-water mark for unsuccessful candidates. As NPOL itself points out, and your analysis ignores, it does not override or derogate the primary notability criterion of significant independent coverage. To argue that highest-profile national media coverage of a school board election is WP:ROUTINE simply defies empirical reality and simple logic. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Numerous sources => passes the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a bit amazing that an article with so many sources would be challenged for deletion—it's the long tail aspect of Wikipedia that drew me to it in the first place. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG, with plenty of reliable sources. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is excellent. She said these things, and has these views, and they have been reported on by an abundance of excellent sources.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not that it's really needed, but here is a source from Russia Today that proves international notability... on top of the dozens of excellent American sources. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2016 (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.