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 redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2018#District 3. Sandstein 10:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Newman[edit]

Marie Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unremarkable person. No evidence given of notability. Challenging for the nomination for a state seat does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the page since she has a chance to defeat a sitting congressman in a closely watched primary election. I edited to article to include more sources as well as neutral sources. Many other candidates for public office have their own Wikipedia page, so this page being deleted would be unprecedented. Political Geek (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRYSTAL, notability cannot depend on what someone might do in the future. Does she have any accomplishments that warrant her being considered notable now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2018#District 3, which is what I did with it a few weeks ago. Her name is a reasonable search term for someone looking into Lipinski's challenger. But, she's not notable per WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. She might win, but yeah, that's WP:CRYSTAL (and an uphill battle against an incumbent with second generation name recognition). Deleting this page because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not "unprecedented". It's common going into U.S. House elections. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and/or redirect to the election article. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet non-winning candidates in future elections — we're an encyclopedia, not a repository of campaign brochures — and being prophesized as having a chance to defeat the incumbent is not enough in and of itself to make her special, because every candidate in any election could or would always at least try to claim that. Non-winning candidates can still clear the bar if (a) they already had preexisting notability for some other reason independent of the candidacy (e.g. having already held another notable office, already having cleared our notability standards for their other pre-political work, etc.), or (b) the amount of coverage they get explodes far beyond what any candidate in any election could simply expect to receive (e.g. Christine O'Donnell, whose witch fiasco got her so much nationalized and internationalized coverage that she actually has a longer and more deeply sourced article than the guy she lost to does.) But neither of those things are true here. So no prejudice against recreation in November if she actually wins the seat, but nothing present here already qualifies her to have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Because of the race, she has received National press coverage from major outlets such as CNN, the Chicago Sun-Times and the HuffPost.^[1][2][3] Political Geek (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Newman is not the subject of any of those pieces, and the Chicago Sun-Times is local to her own district and so its WP:ROUTINE local coverage of local races doesn't assist. A candidate does not get boosted above the notability bar just because sources have namechecked her existence in the expected coverage of congressional races — every candidate in any congressional seat at all could always point to a handful of that. If CNN had switched from focusing on the race to focusing specifically on her, then that would count for something — but getting namechecked in a blurb on "ten races to watch" does not make her the subject of that coverage, and the Chicago Sun-Times giving the expected local coverage to the congressional races in its own local coverage area does not assist the notability of the candidates at all. We need nationalized sources to give her substantive coverage about her, not just to mention that she exists, before they contribute notability points. The coverage needs to explode significantly beyond what any candidate could simply expect to receive before it makes her candidacy special — and getting mentioned in a "ten races to watch" listicle is not at all outside of what could simply be expected. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for the time being. If she wins the primary then restore. MB298 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I will agree to the page being deleted and if she wins the primary on March 20th, I will recreate it. I’m sure if she wins, she will meet likely meet the notability criteria for Wikipedia.—Political Geek (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, even winning the primary isn't grounds for a Wikipedia article. To qualify for inclusion, she will need to win the general election in November, not just the primary to become the general election candidate.

Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If she wins the primary, she would receive extensive press coverage from many National media outlets. But that’s a discussion we’ll have at a later date if she wins the primary.—Political Geek (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Unseating of an incumbent in a primary is something that happens only very rarely, so I'd suspect that such a victory would be notable enough to have an article about. I doubt it will come to that as I don't think she will win the primary, but we'll see. MB298 (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't be notable in and of itself. It may be rare, but it's definitely not unheard of, so it's not in and of itself enough to make a candidate permanently notable just for the fact of being a candidate per se. For one thing, even if the coverage of that fact did go national as Political Geek predicts, it would still only make her a person notable only for a single event. She still has to win the general election to earn inclusion in an encyclopedia that measures its topics by the ten-year test for enduring significance rather than the current newsiness test. Bearcat (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and maybe partially merge the non-copyright-violation parts (if any) to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2018#District 3. WP:POLITICIAN and WP:COPYVIO problems. She'd be pretty much inherently notable once sworn into Congress, but that's 10 months and two elections away. (To be fair, if she won the primary, she'd probably win the general, because the "Republican" on the ballot is Art Jones, a straight-up Nazi.) In any case, the resulting article would have to be re-written from scratch, because the only versions so far are basically just Wikipedia:Copy-paste from campaign advertising: see source #4 below for example. Using the criteria from Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject":
  1. Newman's campaign site, so doesn't count for notability.
  2. Independent, "Meet the progressive Democrat taking on one of her party's most conservative Congress veterans": This article is an item of significant coverage about Newman, independent of the subject, apparently published under the Independent main masthead content (not a blog), and certainly can't be mistaken for "local" in scope.
  3. Joliet Herald-News, "Q&A: Marie Newman talks run for Congress against Dan Lipinski": borders on "significant" and "independent" — but it's the (major) local paper her area — but it's perhaps marginally more than "routine" local coverage
  4. Chicago Tribune, Daily Southtown newsletter, "Slowik: Lipinski facing Democratic challenger Newman in March primary": Covers both Lipinski and Newman. It's probably the kind of coverage that the Chicago Tribune would give to any congressional candidates in the metro, but it does go into some detail on her. It also contains the line: "I am a small businesswoman, entrepreneur, national nonprofit executive, author and rights advocate," which exactly matches every version of this Wikipedia article, so it's probably a copyright violation from day one.
  5. Chicago Tribune, "Morning Spin: Lipinski facing challenge from progressive Democrat in Southwest Side congressional district": About Newman's announcement that she's in. Not significant: it's just the first short item of many in the "Morning Spin" article that comes out every weekday.
  6. YouTube: Newman's campaign, so doesn't count for notability.

  And the sources given in this deletion discussion:

  1. CNN, "9 Democratic primaries to watch in 2018": Title speaks for itself; short summary of 9 different campaigns around the country. Not significant coverage of Newman specifically.
  2. Chicago Sun-Times, "Schakowsky, Gutierrez endorsing Lipinski Democratic primary rival Marie Newman": Metro newspaper. Covers a bit about Newman, and a bit more about Lipinski. Probably the sort of coverage the Sun-Times would feel duty-bound to give any candidate; however, the news in this case was a bit unusual, in that two nearby Democratic members of Congress endorsed Newman, which is the same as saying the incumbent congressman on their own ticket should lose the primary. Might marginally count as significant.
  3. HuffPost, "10 Democratic Primaries To Watch In 2018": Title speaks for itself; short summary of 10 races. Not significant coverage of Newman specifically.

  To me, that doesn't get us there — most losing candidates with some kind of shot would still get that much coverage, and that coverage is due only to the election, which makes the person a subject that is not separately notable from the event. --Closeapple (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is basically a campaign advert. Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2018#District 3 per Closeapple. The election is notable, even if the subject may not (yet) be. --Enos733 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2018#District 3 - I agree that she will likely meet WP:GNG if she wins the primary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Update A note to say I started putting the entry in order for the sake of trying to make up my mind about this AfD, and so far I've identified 7 10 national or international secondary sources outside Chicago/Illinois writing about her. I'll see what else I can turn up, but I find this increasingly borderline... ETA: the entry's becoming more and more substantial, based on independent secondary RS, which is of course WP:WHYN in the first place. Moreover, there's more to add that I have not yet, with a great many of these sources holding up the subject as an important example of broader historical phenomena. I'm leaning toward keep. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable, unelected candidate for congress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2018 (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.