Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Priscilla Lord - Knowledge

Source 📝

791:
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 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." (
238:. 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 730:
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
711:
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
790:
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
529:
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.
607:
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
591:. People do not get Knowledge 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 731:
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.
199: 612:
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
795:, 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. 716:— 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. 267: 193: 749:
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"
287: 160: 487: 307: 107: 324: 92: 521:
Her reported impact on the general election (including the commentary), as well as the national news coverage is what makes this seem not
574:
in and of itself. Failed political candidates are not notable simply because they were in a campaign. There’s nothing else notable here.
681: 444: 379: 133: 128: 137: 753:), 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 443:
due to the significance of the event and the documentation of her role. Due to other non-campaign news coverage after the campaign
60: 456: 120: 87: 80: 17: 650: 214: 181: 792: 424: 101: 97: 879: 349: 40: 432: 175: 673: 428: 371: 862: 841: 804: 782: 740: 725: 707:
lost it to the person who won it — so the fact that she ran against Al Franken doesn't inherently make her
686: 662: 629: 583: 562: 539: 505: 480: 448: 407: 384: 353: 333: 316: 299: 279: 259: 171: 62: 829: 825: 579: 522: 695:
the allegations that forced him to resign, doesn't make her enduringly notable. Literally by definition,
620:, and discounts some types of coverage as much less notability-making than some other types of coverage. 124: 875: 36: 646: 570:
Political candidates are going to get media coverage during the campaign, but that does not constitute
221: 558: 460: 345: 247: 58: 116: 68: 295: 275: 255: 207: 800: 736: 668: 658: 571: 535: 476: 468: 366: 837: 778: 721: 625: 575: 526: 76: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
874:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
420: 35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
832:). I say weak because I'm still of the minority opinion that Senate candidates are notable. 500: 402: 187: 858: 766: 554: 440: 53: 850: 787: 712:
don't show that, since neither the New Yorker nor HuffPo sources even mention her name
642: 609: 592: 436: 362: 328: 311: 291: 271: 251: 235: 796: 770: 732: 654: 531: 472: 464: 231: 641:
The reason why the national news coverage and commentary stood out to me is because
833: 774: 717: 621: 154: 491: 393: 854: 416: 239: 243: 490:. The rest is run of the mill coverage of Senate primary candidate. 415:
I've added some national and state press coverage about her role as
486:
The bit about her ad being repurposed by Coleman could be added to
870:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
691:
The fact that she happened to run against Al Franken, a decade
765:
you, then what you're doing runs afoul of our rule against
651:
The Real Story About The Allegations Against Al Franken
150: 146: 142: 206: 757:
a connection between the two things that the sources
43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 882:). No further edits should be made to this page. 439:notability and appears to demonstrate more than 392:per nom. Not notable either in law or politics. 323:Note: This discussion has been included in the 306:Note: This discussion has been included in the 286:Note: This discussion has been included in the 268:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions 266:Note: This discussion has been included in the 488:2008 United States Senate election in Minnesota 553:. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. 288:list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions 645:(MPR, 2008) passes the 'ten year test', e.g. 471:) 21:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC) (comment updated 459:(2014), she also has not remained completely 220: 8: 853:as an unsuccessful primary candidate. Best, 108:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! 427:) in the 2008 primary campaign, including 322: 308:list of Women-related deletion discussions 305: 285: 265: 667:That's more about Franken, to be honest. 325:list of Law-related deletion discussions 745:If the post-resignation sources don't 451:(2010), and an opinion article in the 830:User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability 7: 828:, and my standards for lawyers (see 616:of what they're covering the person 24: 93:Introduction to deletion process 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1: 761:already placed on the record 421:most visible Democratic rival 248:notability is not inherited 83:(AfD)? Read these primers! 899: 863:03:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC) 842:18:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC) 805:19:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC) 783:18:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC) 741:16:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC) 726:16:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC) 63:00:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC) 687:00:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC) 663:00:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC) 630:23:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC) 584:07:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC) 563:23:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 540:19:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC) 506:23:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 481:00:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC) 408:18:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 385:17:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 365:, not otherwise notable. 354:13:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 334:07:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 317:07:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 300:06:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 280:06:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 260:06:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 872:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 344:an unelected candidate. 647:The Case of Al Franken 81:Articles for deletion 699:candidate who loses 649:(New Yorker, 2019), 435:), which supports 771:original research 769:sources to reach 346:John Pack Lambert 336: 319: 302: 282: 98:Guide to deletion 88:How to contribute 890: 684: 676: 498: 431:(Star Tribune) ( 400: 382: 374: 331: 314: 225: 224: 210: 158: 140: 78: 34: 898: 897: 893: 892: 891: 889: 888: 887: 886: 880:deletion review 826:WP:NOTINHERITED 680: 672: 653:(HuffPo, 2019) 523:WP:COOKIECUTTER 492: 394: 378: 370: 329: 312: 167: 131: 115: 112: 75: 72: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 896: 894: 885: 884: 866: 865: 844: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 689: 633: 632: 586: 565: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 525:and more than 511: 510: 509: 508: 429:after she lost 410: 387: 356: 338: 337: 320: 303: 283: 228: 227: 164: 117:Priscilla Lord 111: 110: 105: 95: 90: 73: 71: 69:Priscilla Lord 66: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 895: 883: 881: 877: 873: 868: 867: 864: 860: 856: 852: 848: 845: 843: 839: 835: 831: 827: 823: 820: 819: 806: 802: 798: 794: 789: 786: 785: 784: 780: 776: 773:conclusions. 772: 768: 764: 760: 756: 752: 748: 744: 743: 742: 738: 734: 729: 728: 727: 723: 719: 715: 710: 706: 702: 698: 694: 690: 688: 685: 683: 677: 675: 670: 669:SportingFlyer 666: 665: 664: 660: 656: 652: 648: 644: 640: 637: 636: 635: 634: 631: 627: 623: 619: 615: 611: 610:ten year test 606: 602: 599:candidate in 598: 594: 590: 587: 585: 581: 577: 573: 569: 566: 564: 560: 556: 552: 549: 548: 541: 537: 533: 528: 524: 520: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 507: 504: 503: 499: 497: 496: 489: 485: 484: 482: 478: 474: 470: 466: 462: 461:WP:LOWPROFILE 458: 454: 450: 446: 442: 438: 434: 430: 426: 422: 418: 414: 411: 409: 406: 405: 401: 399: 398: 391: 388: 386: 383: 381: 375: 373: 368: 367:SportingFlyer 364: 360: 357: 355: 351: 347: 343: 340: 339: 335: 332: 326: 321: 318: 315: 309: 304: 301: 297: 293: 289: 284: 281: 277: 273: 269: 264: 263: 262: 261: 257: 253: 250:, of course. 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 223: 219: 216: 213: 209: 205: 201: 198: 195: 192: 189: 186: 183: 180: 177: 173: 170: 169:Find sources: 165: 162: 156: 152: 148: 144: 139: 135: 130: 126: 122: 118: 114: 113: 109: 106: 103: 99: 96: 94: 91: 89: 86: 85: 84: 82: 77: 70: 67: 65: 64: 61: 59: 57: 56: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 871: 869: 846: 821: 767:synthesizing 762: 758: 754: 750: 746: 713: 708: 704: 700: 696: 692: 679: 671: 638: 617: 613: 604: 600: 596: 588: 576:Go4thProsper 567: 550: 518: 501: 494: 493: 453:Star Tribune 452: 423:" (NYT/AP) ( 412: 403: 396: 395: 389: 377: 369: 358: 341: 229: 217: 211: 203: 196: 190: 184: 178: 168: 74: 54: 49: 47: 31: 28: 822:Weak delete 643:the context 572:WP:NOTEABLE 194:free images 824:per NPOL, 747:explicitly 595:, because 555:Rondolinda 527:WP:ROUTINE 417:Al Franken 55:Ritchie333 876:talk page 703:election 603:election 330:Spiderone 313:Spiderone 292:DanCherek 272:DanCherek 252:DanCherek 37:talk page 878:or in a 797:Beccaynr 793:Guardian 733:Beccaynr 655:Beccaynr 532:Beccaynr 473:Beccaynr 465:Beccaynr 447:(2015), 441:WP:BLP1E 433:MPR News 161:View log 102:glossary 39:or in a 851:WP:NPOL 834:Bearian 788:WP:10YT 775:Bearcat 759:haven't 718:Bearcat 639:Comment 622:Bearcat 614:context 593:WP:NPOL 519:Comment 437:WP:NPOL 363:WP:NPOL 246:), but 236:WP:NPOL 200:WP refs 188:scholar 134:protect 129:history 79:New to 849:Fails 847:Delete 751:at all 714:at all 705:always 693:before 605:always 589:Delete 568:Delete 551:Delete 495:BD2412 397:BD2412 390:Delete 361:fails 359:Delete 342:Delete 232:WP:GNG 230:Fails 172:Google 138:delete 50:delete 855:GPL93 755:infer 701:every 697:every 601:every 597:every 240:Miles 215:JSTOR 176:books 155:views 147:watch 143:links 16:< 859:talk 838:talk 801:talk 779:talk 737:talk 722:talk 709:more 659:talk 626:talk 580:talk 559:talk 536:talk 477:talk 469:talk 419:'s " 413:Keep 350:talk 296:talk 276:talk 256:talk 242:and 234:and 208:FENS 182:news 151:logs 125:talk 121:edit 763:for 618:for 425:NPR 244:Jim 222:TWL 159:– ( 861:) 840:) 803:) 781:) 739:) 724:) 661:) 628:) 582:) 561:) 538:) 483:) 479:) 463:. 455:, 352:) 327:. 310:. 298:) 290:. 278:) 270:. 258:) 202:) 153:| 149:| 145:| 141:| 136:| 132:| 127:| 123:| 52:. 857:( 836:( 799:( 777:( 735:( 720:( 682:C 678:· 674:T 657:( 624:( 578:( 557:( 534:( 502:T 475:( 467:( 457:3 449:2 445:1 404:T 380:C 376:· 372:T 348:( 294:( 274:( 254:( 226:) 218:· 212:· 204:· 197:· 191:· 185:· 179:· 174:( 166:( 163:) 157:) 119:( 104:) 100:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
talk page
deletion review
Ritchie333


00:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Priscilla Lord

Articles for deletion
How to contribute
Introduction to deletion process
Guide to deletion
glossary
Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
Priscilla Lord
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Google
books
news
scholar

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.