362:-passing significance per se. Obviously we'll recreate an article after election day if she wins the seat, but Knowledge is not a free publicity platform to help unelected candidates reach the voters in the meantime — and nominator is correct that "wait and see" isn't appropriate: as I've pointed out in other recent discussions, if we decided that there was a moratorium on deleting premature candidate articles X days before the election, then every candidate in America could just bumrush Knowledge with their campaign brochures on Day X.
380:
You are precise on the consequences of such a moratorium of deletion before an election. I didn't ultimately express it explicitly in my deletion nomination, but that very thought had crossed my mind while nominating this for deletion that if we let "wait and see" become a policy for articles on
236:
It is also possibly that the circumstances could change before this deletion discussion even ends. If she wins her congressional election in less than two weeks, she'll then unquestionably have enough notability, and, under those circumstances, this article should be kept (or recreated if it has
357:
a notable political office, not just running for one, and this article neither demonstrates that she had preexisting notability for other reasons prior to the candidacy, nor shows a credible reason to treat her candidacy as being of any special
322:- even though the text isn't written promotionally, it functions in the same way as a campaign brochure, the sourcing in the article is really poor, and she's not known for anything except being a candidate. We can restore if she wins.
198:
240:
I'll disclose that I am actually personally a fan of Ms. Boroughs. I just don't think she has yet to establish enough notability for an article on
Knowledge. It's policy over personal preference/opinion here.
232:
In the end, I could be wrong, or at least out-ruled on this. I didn't believe another congressional candidate had the notability for an article earlier this year, but the decision was to keep their article.
229:
I do not believe that Ms. Boroughs has met the notability guidelines of
Knowledge. At the very least, if she has, the article seems to fail to sufficiently establish the case for that notability.
278:
444:
candidates for public office are not default notable for being such. If Ms. Burroughs wins an article on her will of course be created, but she is not notable as a candidate.
159:
258:
192:
298:
237:
already been deleted before then). But it is still important we start this discussion, as "wait and see" is not really our rule-of-thumb here at
Knowledge.
106:
91:
349:. People do not get Knowledge articles just for running as candidates in future elections whose winner is not yet known — the notability test at
381:
candidates close to elections, then we'd see many non-notable candidates have BLP articles written for them in the closing days of elections.
336:
132:
127:
136:
119:
86:
79:
17:
213:
180:
100:
96:
395:
That sounds like a policy that would turn
Knowledge into a free campaign publicity site. It would create a true mess.
470:
449:
400:
40:
174:
386:
328:
266:
246:
453:
436:
404:
390:
371:
341:
307:
290:
270:
250:
170:
61:
123:
466:
36:
220:
445:
396:
57:
115:
67:
286:
206:
382:
323:
262:
242:
367:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
465:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
318:
Candidates are not eligible for articles just for being candidates, and this likely violates
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
429:
186:
319:
53:
423:
359:
350:
302:
282:
419:
363:
153:
461:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
418:
No indication of being notable outside election. Fails
149:
145:
141:
205:
279:
list of South
Carolina-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
473:). No further edits should be made to this page.
297:Note: This discussion has been included in the
277:Note: This discussion has been included in the
259:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
257:Note: This discussion has been included in the
219:
8:
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
299:list of Women-related deletion discussions
296:
276:
256:
7:
24:
92:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
454:18:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
437:12:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
405:18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
391:21:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
372:01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
342:07:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
308:19:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
291:19:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
271:19:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
251:19:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
62:11:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
490:
463:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
80:Articles for deletion
446:John Pack Lambert
397:John Pack Lambert
310:
293:
273:
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
481:
434:
432:
339:
331:
305:
224:
223:
209:
157:
139:
77:
34:
489:
488:
484:
483:
482:
480:
479:
478:
477:
471:deletion review
430:
428:
335:
327:
303:
166:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
487:
485:
476:
475:
457:
456:
439:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
375:
374:
344:
312:
311:
294:
274:
227:
226:
163:
116:Adair Boroughs
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
68:Adair Boroughs
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
486:
474:
472:
468:
464:
459:
458:
455:
451:
447:
443:
440:
438:
435:
433:
425:
421:
417:
414:
413:
406:
402:
398:
394:
393:
392:
388:
384:
383:SecretName101
379:
378:
377:
376:
373:
369:
365:
361:
356:
352:
348:
345:
343:
340:
338:
332:
330:
325:
324:SportingFlyer
321:
317:
314:
313:
309:
306:
300:
295:
292:
288:
284:
280:
275:
272:
268:
264:
263:SecretName101
260:
255:
254:
253:
252:
248:
244:
243:SecretName101
238:
234:
230:
222:
218:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
169:
168:Find sources:
164:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
462:
460:
441:
427:
415:
354:
346:
334:
326:
315:
239:
235:
231:
228:
216:
210:
202:
195:
189:
183:
177:
167:
73:
49:
47:
31:
28:
431:scope_creep
193:free images
54:Geschichte
467:talk page
304:Spiderone
283:Shellwood
37:talk page
469:or in a
320:WP:PROMO
160:View log
101:glossary
39:or in a
424:WP:NPOL
364:Bearcat
360:WP:10YT
355:holding
351:WP:NPOL
199:WP refs
187:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
442:Delete
420:WP:BIO
416:Delete
347:Delete
316:Delete
171:Google
137:delete
50:delete
214:JSTOR
175:books
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
450:talk
401:talk
387:talk
368:talk
287:talk
267:talk
247:talk
207:FENS
181:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
426:.
353:is
221:TWL
158:– (
452:)
422:,
403:)
389:)
370:)
301:.
289:)
281:.
269:)
261:.
249:)
201:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
52:.
448:(
399:(
385:(
366:(
337:C
333:·
329:T
285:(
265:(
245:(
225:)
217:·
211:·
203:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
178:·
173:(
165:(
162:)
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.