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 delete and redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2018#District 2. Lourdes 03:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Eastman[edit]

Kara Eastman (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)

She is an unsuccessful political candidate, and this article should be redirected to the relevant election overview page per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Her career as a nonprofit executive has not received WP:SIGCOV and she doesn't meet WP:GNG. The coverage of her campaign was routine and the article doesn't warrant keeping when we typically don't have articles on unsuccessful political candidates. Marquardtika (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural speedy close Articles for Deletion is not the place to propose merges and redirects. (A selective merge, carrying along the WaPo and Newsweek material — which, to me, rises above "routine" coverage for congressional district races — seems a reasonable course of action.) XOR'easter (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and then redirect. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiral Tipirneni (2nd nomination), I fail to see anything which requires that the page history be removed from public view by deletion. Redirects can always be protected to prevent overzealous fans from re-creating articles. XOR'easter (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A fair point - just want to make sure something like this happens if it is redirected. SportingFlyer talk 00:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable politician. Fails to meet inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then recreate as redirect. As always, candidates don't get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but this demonstrates neither that she has preexisting notability for other reasons, nor that her candidacy exploded into a special case over and above everybody else's candidacies. As for whether this should be deleted and then recreated as a redirect, or just redirected immediately, the burden of proof is actually on whether there's an affirmative reason to retain the edit history — that is, the onus isn't on the "delete + redirect" crowd to prove that retaining the edit history behind the redirect would be actively harmful (which is almost never true in the absence of extreme BLP violations), it's on the "redirect without deletion" crowd to prove that retaining the edit history behind the redirect would have any positive value. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect is fine. No need to delete the article history. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:36, 21 November 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.