Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Moser

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. Current consensus is that she is notable enough, if not as a politician, then at least as a writer. Before renominating, consider that a redirect to United States House of Representatives elections, 2018#Texas might always be possible. SoWhy 07:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Laura Moser

Laura Moser (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)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:POLOUTCOMES as merely a candidate. Also, her association with Daily Action isn't enough to pass WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• It is not right to mention her "involvement with Daily Action" (which I note needs a page of its own). She was not merely involved with it but was the founder of it, and DA continues to be one of the most important organizations that emerged from of the new anti-Trump Resistance, which includes things like Indivisible, Make5Calls, etc., which were a new and very significant force in American politics and emerged from the Trump victory in the November elections. It has hundreds of thousands of members. And Laura Moser is also a widely published author and journalist. So even without her candidacy she is a notable person. (talk) (talk) Eve.b.i (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)eve.b.i

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Being a founder of an organization is not an automatic notability freebie on Wikipedia, if the reliable source coverage about her in that role is lacking. There may be a valid claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR for her writing, but this article isn't showing that — writers don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because their books exist either, but must be the subject of reliable source coverage about their writing.
  Going over the sources here, we have: (1) a primary source "staff" profile on the website of an organization with which she's directly affiliated; (2) a directory entry which verifies the existence of her father but contains no content whatsoever about Laura; (3) one acceptable source about her writing; (4) an unreliable source blog; (5) self-written content about herself; (6) self-written content about herself; (7) an article about her husband which contains no mention of Laura at all; (8) a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article that isn't about her; (9) a paywalled article which may be an acceptable source but is impossible for me to verify at all; (10) another piece of self-written content about herself; (11) a piece which verifies a completely tangential fact about her future election competitor while containing no mention of Moser at all; (12) a piece which verifies a completely tangential fact about the district where she's running while containing no mention of Moser at all.
  In other words, what we have here is not the quality or depth or breadth of sourcing that it takes to make her notable either as the founder of an organization or as a writer. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if her notability and sourceability beefs up, but nothing present here right now is enough to get her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this detailed feedback! I will do a bit more research and improve the article along the lines your mentioned. (talk) (talk) Eve.b.i (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep She is written up in the news over time, especially for Daily Action and her upcoming run. She is also profiled by the Jewish Women's Archive. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per Megalibrarygirl. A local politician getting national news coverage signifies notability. bd2412 T 03:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect If kept, the rationale is the profile in Houstonia, a magazine with a large reported readership, in combination with a sprinkle or biographical details found in some pre-campaign coverage that, together, might meet WP:GNG (I reserve judgement about whether the subject would pass WP:AUTHOR). The community's usual outcome for candidates for candidates to the US Congress is a redirect to the appropriate page for the electoral contest in Texas, such as United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2018 (per WP:POLOUTCOMES). If kept, there are lots of WP:COATRACK issues that need cleanup. --Enos733 (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep per WP:AUTHOR and E.M. Gregory. Same WP:COATRACK issues should be addressed. --Enos733 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete As Nom says, coverage of candidates for Congress does not constitute notability. In this case, she is one of a sizeable group of Democrats already running to unseat an incumbent in 2018 in Texas's 7th District. Not surprising that the same, infrequent editor who created Benjamin Moser would create this campaign promotion. She has published books, but I cannot find that they WP:SIGCOV - such as feature stories or book reviews. Her bio of Bette Davis seems ot have drawn no attention beyond the routine pre-pub review in Publisher's Weekly, which establishes that a book was published. Delete; sufficient sources not found to support notability. And we don't keep candidate PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per same infrequent editor. It is easy to find reviews of Laura Moser's books, as a quick search on Amazon will reveal. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0618555196?_encoding=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div. Just this week she was the subject of a full-page story in the Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/as-more-women-run-for-office-district-residents-join-the-roster-of-candidates/2017/07/08/005cccf0-5b3d-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html?utm_term=.a0fa6052a2e1 Points taken about necessary cleanup of article but it seems to me that she would qualify based on her status as an author and journalist, along with her role in the anti-Trump movement, even without her candidacy. User:eve.b.i —Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Apparently notable as an author. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 12 July 2017 (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.