Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Colbert Busch

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Colbert Busch

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The subject of this proposal has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, so it can be argued that the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. That being said, the reason for bringing this article to deletion is due to my opinion that the subject has received almost all of this significant coverage in relation to an event, that event being South Carolina's 1st congressional district special election, 2013. As such the subject of this proposal falls under WP:BLP1E, and as the subject is/was an active politician the subject also falls under WP:POLITICIANS which states

3.Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability ...

Furthermore, WP:POLOUTCOMES states the following:

Unelected candidates for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into long lists of campaign hopefuls, such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010.

Therefore, the article should either be deleted, or redirected into the article about the event which the subject received significant coverage about. If the subject receives significant coverage outside of that related to the election the article can always be recreated from the redirect that would be created. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely understand the argument of BLP1E, but she's gotten coverage that doesn't relate to the election, so I don't think the policy applies.[1] I had initially thought of nominating this article for deletion on the argument of WP:NOTINHERITED, but now I believe the coverage of her from this high profile race has exceeded any NOTINHERITED or WP:POLITICIAN concerns, as she meets WP:GNG, which supersedes those other guidelines. Reliable sources do mention her as the sister of Stephen Colbert, but as a throwaway line in many cases, suggesting that it's not the reason the articles are written. There are plenty of sources about her that don't mention Stephen at all.[2][3]– Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first link to this source, IMHO is not in-depth coverage of the individual, it is an article that is all of three very short sentences. Also the two sources from the WaPo and Slate are about the election which she was a candidate in; and thus the coverage is relating to the event.

As I stated, if the subject receives significant coverage outside of that related to the election, I can understand that the individual is notable outside of the field of politics, but vast majority of significant coverage that I found regarding the subject was directly due to the subject being a candidate for a political office, and as such falls under coverage relating to the election event. If there is significant coverage not related to the election is out there, please provide it to be evaluated by us other editors.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (edit conflict) Most definitely not a BLP1E, since she is not a low-profile individual. The more pertinent policy is WP:BIO1E, which is basically about whether this is a biography or a "pseudo-biography". IMHO, it's the former. The article has a well-balanced and well-sourced coverage of her life. Furthermore, I note that falling under WP:POLITICIANS doesn't negate being notable under GNG/ANYBIO; rather, it's the other way around. As for WP:POLOUTCOMES, yes, she doesn't have inherent notability. However, as one of the most heavily-covered House races in recent American history, I think Colbert Busch definitely falls in the category of losing political candidates who are nonetheless notable. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu's and PinkAmpersand's well-stated reasoning. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where she's received significant coverage not related to this one event. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bold text Can anyone provide evidence of significant coverage not related to the election? Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that required? WP:GNG doesn't state what the coverage has to be in relation to, and WP:POLITICIAN doesn't supersede GNG. She has certainly received enough coverage during the election, which in addition to some coverage she got in her role at Clemson before running, is plenty. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the vast majority of the coverage that I found, doing the such required by WP:BEFORE was related to the event which the subject received significant coverage about, the election. Therefore the subject falls under unelected politician (POLITICIAN) and BLP1E.

I had not found any in-depth coverage of the individual regarding her role at Clemson that wasn't created from the period she was a potential and then active candidate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Biographies of living persons policy would supersede the general notability guideline. WP:BLP1E says to avoid having an article if, among other things, "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Sure, she was covered by reliable sources before the election, but just barely. Is that really enough? If a person would normally not have an article because of WP:BLP1E, but they have previously been in the news for winning second prize in a beauty contest, the BLP1E policy wouldn't apply? That seems to go against the spirit of the policy.

The page should redirect to the election's article. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG (which supercedes the Special Guideline for Politicians). Not your ordinary losing candidate for ordinary office, as more than 60,000 page views in the last 30 days indicate. A prime example of a good time to use common sense (spelled I-A-R) rather than to engage in neener-neener triumphalism. Carrite (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please believe me when I say, this is not about side X winning, and side Y loosing, this is about notability. I have supported redirects of loosing candidates to election articles before regardless of their political affiliation, that is unless they are notable for something outside of the election.

Same can be said about my opinion Christopher Dorner, and my opinion that the article should be redirected to 2013 Southern California shootings, per BLP1E and Tom Hoefling, Sukhminder Virk and Sheldon Fisher per POLOUTCOMES. This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject's political affiliation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing. Almost no one heard of the subject until the subject thought about becoming a candidate, became a candidate, and lost an election. All these are directly related to one event, the special election (a long event I agree, but still one event); therefore BLP1E applies. If the subject is notable for something other than one event, please let the community know. For instance Nick Popaditch survived AfD (which I was not involved in) as he was notable outside of politics per WP:AUTHOR; is this the case for this subject?

WP:BEFORE says I as the nominator need to look for sources myself to see if the subject is notable as defined by the various notability guidelines. I stated upfront that others may say passes GNG, and I gave my reasoning why even though the subject has received significant coverage why BLP1E applies to all those sources. So if the subject is notable outside the coverage related to the election, please let us know.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move later I think that with the election already over, the article will receive fewer and fewer views. Eventually, we can take the election-specific stuff and put it in the election article. I see no need for a separate article. Colbert Busch most likely will not be running for public office again. In a couple of weeks, once page views are down, the page should be redirected. PrairieKid (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above positions on notability etc. Royal Mate1 22:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have noted she is notable in her own right and deserves an article. Politicsislife (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable and per above. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 17:40, 13 May 2013 (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.