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 no consensus. Both sides have very valid arguments, but can't lean either way, defaulting to keep. Wizardman 23:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Edwards[edit]

Donna Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page seems to be about a person who ran for political office and lost. There is little else on the page that would elevate it to notability standards. With no other claim to significance presented in the article, arguably it does not meet WP:BIO guidelines; she has not been the subject of any credible independent biographies nor has she received any significant recognized awards or honors. Her inclusion would probably be more suitable for a page that lists candidates for national office or in a page on her race (see: United States House elections, 2006 notable races). Marylandstater 14:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article was created during her candidacy, and at that time she may have been notable. Now she has lost the election, and the 2008 election is in crystal ball territory. Losers of local elections are not notable IMO. The article is also short on reliable sources. Shalom ^Hello 14:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Ummmmmm, she's is currently a candidate for Congress, and the policy is to keep those.... --Cjs56 23:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What policy? Morgan Wick 01:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, "the policy." As in, "the policy that probably doesn't exist, but seems to me like a good rule of thumb so I call it a policy" policy. Also, I've seen a lot of "articles for deletion" discussions about current major-party candidates for Congress, and I have never seen one get deleted- not that precedence should be misconstrued for policy; I'm just sayin' is all.--Cjs56 02:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would be accepting of major party candidates to Congress once they've been through the primary process, but any old kook can sign up to be part of the primary; doesn't make them notable. Morgan Wick 04:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, but the article clearly states that she isn't "any old cook." She has an extensive resume of mainstream activist work, earned the WaPost's endorsement in 2006, and came within a very close margin of winning the primary that year as well. Also, I would note that the district which she would like to represent is so overwhelmingly Democratic that the primary will almost certainly determine who wins the general. --Cjs56 05:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Unless you consider the Washington Post to be an unreliable source, I don't see how you can claim this article is short on reliable sources. It's got (unproperly formatted, but legit) links to several Post articles, as well as the (biased, but still useful) links to the arca foudation and Edwards' campaign site. --Cjs56 02:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think that major party losing candidates for national legislative positions are notable, and therefore she is from the previous election. I think it ought to be our practice, and if enough people start agreeing on this, then it becomes an informal guideline. I would not extend this to candidate for a party nomination; as Morgan Wick says, that's a little too remote & much too low a bar (at least in most states).DGG 07:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have read the above coments with great interest and am still not persuaded that a person meets the notability standards simply by running for a national office. In fact, what you call a national office in reality is just a local race. The district is one of eight Maryland congressional districts and until I came across this article, I could not name any of the challengers who lost congressional races in Maryland. She may have some notoriety in the Washington suburbs, but none in Baltimore burbs, Western Maryland or the Eastern shore of Maryland. I certainly would not find a person who lost the primary in Texas or Minnesota notable; and I doubt if anyone in Dallas or St.Paul has ever heard of Edwards or would consider her noteworthy either.Marylandstater 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet notability.Balloonman 05:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Edwards is running for the Dem nod in 2008 again (she just launched her campaign July 1); she's also been generating a lot of interest on national political blogs. This rematch will be (and is) closely covered by national media. It makes sense to keep the page. Psjalltheway 20:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She's not notable yet. She's a footnote on Al Wynn's bio, until she beats him.Triple3D 16:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per DGG's logic. Giggy _U^CP 23:44, 11 July 2007 (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.