Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy E. Long


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wendy E. Long

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As page creator. I originally built this stub several years ago after seeing her engaging in advocacy on behalf of conservative SCOTUS nominees. I remember at the time straining to find unconnected sources. While she got some coverage in the recent failed senatorial election, I'm not seeing anything reliable documenting any part of her career outside of that election bid. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. BusterD (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Dear BusterD, As a new page contributor, we are currently putting together more information to add to Wendy E. Longs page. We would really prefer to keep the Wendy E. Long page up and add more notable events to her Wikipedia page. Wendy is still going to be active in her aspiring political career. The information that you refer to has not been added yet but will be soon. Also, the Wendy E. Long page is not violating any Wikipedia guidelines. WP:BIO WP:PEOPLE WP: Author --Ausstone (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep although the article is weighted to the election. Even without the senate race section, however, I think the article passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: If the article survives deletion, it will need to be rewritten placing the election as a past event (instead of upcoming). Chris857 (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. @ Chris857 The election section has been rewritten in the past tense. --Ausstone (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Needs to be trimmed to be written primarily from secondary sources, but there appear to be sources which meet WP:GNG.  --j⚛e deckertalk 17:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect to United States Senate election in New York, 2012, as I had attempted to do two months ago (and which was reverted with absolutely no AGF by an editor with a grand total of 17 edits, seven of which are to this article or its talk page). I held off running this through AFD at that time by BusterD, who asked me to wait until after the campaign, in the interest of eliminating a perceived bias on Wikipedia, something of which I am aware and to which I am sympathetic. Absolutely zero of the references (and nothing I could find online in reliable sources) about the subject is not about her senate campaign or something which is self-published by her non-profit organization. She doesn't meet the bar for notability under the GNG, and she manifestly fails WP:POLITICIAN. The reason she fails under the GNG is WP:BIO1E, since all of the independent sources are about her senate campaign. I think the article should be deleted outright (along with a host of other articles about failed candidates), but I am not dead-set opposed to a redirect to the campaign article. I do not think that retention of the article is appropriate, however, since she lacks notability outside the context of the senate campaign.  Horologium  (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LtNOWIS (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. LtNOWIS (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article passes WP:GNG, and Long's work with the Judicial Conformation Network is sufficiently notable that she does not fail under WP:BIO1E. Furthermore it is inaccurate to state that all of the independent sources covering Wendy Long are about her senate campaign. There is sufficient coverage of her in independent sources prior to her run for the senate, particularly surrounding the Judicial Conformation Network's name change and opposition to Obama's judicial nominees. --Tdl1060 (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The first link you provide has a one-sentence quote from Long, in the context of a substantial article about opposition to potential Obama appointees. The second one has a single paragraph dedicated to a Long quote; there are several other Judicial Confirmation Network member quotes which would help to establish notability for the organization (note the redlink for the group), but not enough to establish notability for Long herself. Show me something other than a press release from the group, her senate campaign, or passing references, and I might reconsider, but what has been shown so far does not push her into WP:GNG territory, and she still clearly fails under WP:POLITICIAN.  Horologium  (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Okay; here are some sources that give a good degree of coverage to Long herself. The first link is to an article that is written largely as a response to a column that Wendy Long wrote in National Review. --Tdl1060 (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The first of these new links is primarily about Sonia Sotomayor, not Wendy Long; although it was inspired by something which Long wrote, it is not about her, it's about Sotomayor and her qualifications (or lack thereof) for the Supreme Court. The second link contains a brief precis about Long in a single paragraph; it's not primarily about her (in fact, that paragraph talks more about the Judicial Confirmation Network and its website than about Long). The third story is is simply a quote of her entire (brief) statement about Sotomayor; again, it's not about Long, it's about Sotomayor. It does help to establish notability for the Judicial Confirmation Network (for which I think I may have to create at least a stub article, based on some of the references here), but not for Long herself. None of these articles are about Long, they are about the JCN and its opposition to Sotomayor. Long was simply the spokesperson for the group.  Horologium  (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe it passes WP:POLITICIAN #2, and certainly WP:GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How does being a candidate for office meet WP:POLITICIANcriterion#2? She has never held any office, which is a prerequisite for the criterion you have cited.  Horologium  (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, #2 only states "political figures" with no implication of actual office-holding. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:POLITICIAN AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect Fails WP:POLITICIAN by not holding statewide office and by lacking "significant press coverage" in RS that are actually ABOUT her. References that do exist are trivial outside of the 2012 NY Senate race, so page should be redirected to that article. Celtechm (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per past outcomes. We have tended to delete losing candidates for city, county, state legislature, and even the House of Representatives. I have been a firm and consistent advocate of the same.  However, we have tended to keep losing candidates for major statewide offices in larger states, e.g., Harry Wilson (businessman), especially if they have some bare notability before they ran and lost.  The subject gained significant coverage on television, radio, and newsprint media.  The fact that she lost so badly is actually historic; she will be perhaps most notable for having gotten the lowest percentage of votes of any major party candidate since 1934.  In any case, she passes my standards for attorneys: an editor of the Northwestern University Law Review, Order of the Coif, post-doc fellow, law clerk for Ralph K. Winter and Clarence Thomas, etc.  FWIW, I voted for the winner. Bearian (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable per WP:POLITICIAN (#3), unelected but still sufficient coverage from independent secondary, WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bearian puts it best. A failed House candidate with no other notability we would delete. A failed major-party Senate candidate, for a large state like New York, I would be very reluctant to delete. Add in Long's legal background, and this is a clear keep decision for me. -LtNOWIS (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.