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The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). – Muboshgu (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Moulton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Unelected political candidate who has received significant coverage for only one event (2014 election). Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BLP1E. Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by nominator - After reading User:Rustavo's argument and looking over the sources, I believe that Moulton just meets notability requirements. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hirolovesswords: Thanks for weighing in. While writing this, I solicited the opinions of two editors involved in prior deletions of this topic - they both reviewed the draft and encouraged me to post it to mainspace. You can read their opinions on Kudpung's talk page.

For my part, I don't think WP:BLP1E applies - all 3 conditions need to be met for this to count against an otherwise notable article, and I actually don't think any of them are. 1) In addition to the extensive 2014 election coverage, Seth Moulton received substantial contemporaneous coverage for his commentary on the Iraq War (most notably the Boston Magazine article, but also reviews of No End In Sight) 2) During the Iraq war, the 6+ national NPR News interviews, several other media interviews, and prominent appearance in an Acadamy Award nominated documentary, all many years before the 2014 election really preclude him from being considered a "low-profile individual" outside the context of the election. 3) The 2014 election is significant and very well documented, as the many feature-level pieces in regional media, and at least one column by a prominent national political commentator in TIME magazine attest. There are also more brief mentions in a number of national media pieces on "most competitive" or "most significant" elections for the 2014 cycle.

As I discussed more extensively on Kudpung's talk page, I think criteria 2 and 3 of WP:POLITICIAN are satisfied in this case. While there is no question that many unelected primary challengers in congressional races will not satisfy notability criteria, the level of regional and national press coverage of Seth Moulton I think makes this an exception. One other point which I did not mention in the article out of WP:NPOV concerns is that Moulton has been endorsed by both the major Boston papers (the Boston Globe and Boston Herald), and most of the major papers in the 6th district - this is pretty unusual for a primary challenger, and the Globe endorsement has subsequently been noted by national political media, e.g. :[1] and [2]. Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 11:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rustavo. Satisfies WP:GNG, marginally passes WP:POLITICIAN.--JayJasper (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the political aspect of this article weak, but the military aspect strong. Being a failed politician is hardly notable, but it appears that this fellow was notable in his actions in Iraq. I would beef up that part of the article, and leave the political part as a "mention" until he actually gets elected. So it's a weak keep with a request to Rustavo (which is pretty much the sole editor on this article) to give us more of the military history, if possible. LaMona (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2014 (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.