Talk:Darcy Burner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents 1 Deletion debate 2 Clean-up 3 Adding the AFD tag is highly POV 4 Early Life and Education 4.1 Combine with Family? 5 Anti-Reichert ad by the DCCC 6 Pre-election polling: delete? 7 copyvio? 8 Is this a resume or campaign brochure?

[edit] Deletion debate

This article was nominated for deletion on July 20, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Clean-up

Clean up, clean up, everybody do your share...

[edit] Adding the AFD tag is highly POV

Adding the AFD tag is highly POV. This is a super close race and there is no reason to delete it now.--8bitJake 03:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I added the AfD tag actually after it was brought to my attention by someone. It's NOT POV, I live in Maryland and really have no interest in this race. Individual candidates for ublic office are NOT notable enough to warrent an article in Wikipedia. A mention in the article about the race yes, but not an articel dedicated to them. If she wins the race, then by all means, she belongs in. Wildthing61476 13:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that 8bitjake made the above comment means that he admits the purpose of this page is about the election. We at Wikipedia are not interested in the election, and articles should be here because the subjects are interesting, not as political advertising. The test is: will anyone still care about this article if she loses the election? If not, then it is just polotical advertising and should not be here. DJ Clayworth 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well those of us in Washington State do actually care about the election. She is currently polling ahead and is expected to win. There are articles on former cannidates that did not get elected but no one has nominated Dino Rossi for deletion.--8bitJake 21:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dino Rossi has notability becuase of the race he was in and the EXTREMELY close outcome. Also for a time, he was the "winner" of the election, so there is SOME notablility there. Up to this point Ms. Burner has no notability outside of the fact she's running for office. It seems to me the NPOV might be with you as you seem to be defending her simply because she is a Democrat perhaps? I'd do this with ANY candidate Democrat, Republican, 3rd party, I don't care, on here they are not-notable and need to be cleaned up. If she wins, by all means bring her back on. As my final point, I'm running for Baltimore City Council in 2008, do you see a Wiki article dedicated to me? Wildthing61476 21:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

She is possibly going to be a part of the Democratic Congressional Wave of 2006. The 2006 election is an outstanding issue of national importance. Well if you got the endorsement of a major politcal party for a major race for a highly contested seat then yeah why not.--8bitJake 00:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That statement alone is POV however! If she wins, then yes an article is necessary. Wikipedia is NOT a political platform, and to be truthful, if she wasn't running for office, she wouldn't be notable enough for an article. If I got the endorsment of a prarty, I still wouldn't want an article on here about me, I'm not notable enough. ANYONE can run for office, but if you win, then you are notable. Wildthing61476 00:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Jake, I believe that you in Washington care about the election. However you are not allowed to use Wikipedia to further your opinions as to who should win. That's the point here. DJ Clayworth 13:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a major 2006 race for U.S. House. It is pretty silly to suggest that this person isn't notable. There is plenty of information out there that is available for an article about this candidate. Furthermore, I see no reason why high profile candidates shouldn't have articles on Wikipedia. --Sunsetpacific 07:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, there was an AfD vote, which resulted in the article NOT being deleted, so further discussion here is somewhat academic. Those who want to discuss this further are encouraged to comment on the proposed policy for such matters: Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. John Broughton 12:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Life and Education

24.18.145.253 posted the following in the article... I have no comment on its content -- but I do feel obligated to move it to the discussion page:

It's not factual to say as in the introduction that "She worked for a dozen years in high technology including five years at Microsoft as a Lead Product Manager, working on the .NET Framework. Burner left Microsoft in 2004 to enter politics." Darcy worked less than 4 years at Microsoft as a marketing program manager, not as lead nor as a product manager. See Darcy's MSDN blog. She did not enter politics until 2006, after dropping out of law school, which she pursued after leaving Microsoft, at other times Darcy claims she left to raise her newborn son.

Doubleplusjeff 21:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely doesn't belong in the article until/unless it is properly sourced per Wikipedia:Verifiability, and of course would need to be reworded to conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. John Broughton | Talk 00:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combine with Family?

Would it not be more typical for a biography to combine the information in /*Early Life*/ with that in /*Family*/ ? Marriage and birth both preceed the 2006 political campaign and so should not be split by it. I see that the same issue exists on her election opponent's page. This split might be appropriate for campaign materials but not in an encyclopedia ... but I hestitate to make such a change w/o discussion. rewinn 06:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a good suggestion; I've changed the article. In general, articles on Congressfolk (that's the biographies I'm most familiar with) have a section called "Personal", covering marriage, children, religion, and other things that don't really fit well into the chronological stream of events. I've combined them since the "Family" section was miniscule. John Broughton | Talk 13:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Reichert ad by the DCCC

I have removed this section because the article is about Burner. Her campaign didn't pay for the ad, the DCCC did. Nothing in the cited story says that she or her campaign had any influence in creating the ad. Yes, the campaign paid for a COPY of the event in which Reichert made the statements quoted in the ad; and it's quite possible that the campaign sent a copy of that to the DCCC. But attacking Burner when the DCCC is (possibly) at fault is not appropriate for wikipedia articles; Burner would need to be shown to be MUCH more involved in this before it passes the necessary threshold.

The section WOULD be appropriate for Reichart's article, however - he was attacked by the DCCC, he thinks it's unfair, etc. I do think it should be slightly shorter - this is one ad in the campaign, not the entire campaign. The purpose of providing the link (which, by the way, should be immediately after the text that is added, not put in the external links list) is to allow the reader to go to the article and find out more. John Broughton | Talk 13:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-election polling: delete?

Pre-election polls change too quickly to be encyclopediac. They will be meaningless after Nov 7 anyway. I suggest deleting them. I made same suggestion on Dave Reichert. rewinn 05:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think polls are among the more interesting things in such articles. Yes, they do change, and yes they'll be meaningless after Nov 7, but for the meantime, they are relevant. John Broughton | Talk 13:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copyvio?

The paragraph: "Although Reichert is defending a seat...issues on which he and the president disagree" was lifted verbatim from CQPolitics.com, so it's a copyvio. If you remove CQP's unsourced opinions, there's nothing left that isn't otherwise covered in the article. David Brooks 06:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's gone (I think; this is quite a moving target here). I do agree that quoting an entire paragraph is problematical; a sentence or two is (in my opinion) acceptable as fair use, and of course minor rewording for clarity is also helpful to avoid copyvio. John Broughton | Talk 13:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a resume or campaign brochure?

Serious question: are the sections titled "endoresements", "views", and "affiliations" relevant in the least to an article? Yes, it may be relevant to a resume and/or campaign brochure, but an article like this? I think not. Anyone else? -- Sholom 13:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a short paragraph: "Burner has been endorsed by numerous labor and political (other? ?) groups, including [list four or five of the most notable). The paragraph wouldn't have a section of its own, of course. For views, I'm pretty comfortable with the five two-sentence items. As for memberships and affiliations, I'm taking those out now. John Broughton | Talk 13:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Most likely the motivation for the original addition of endorsements was an attempt to balance the list under Dave Reichert#2006 Campaign for Re-Election. David Brooks 15:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the Reichert entry should be changed rather than this entry becoming a puff piece on a challenger. I don't see many extensive entries on challengers that lose. I am assuming at some point after the election, this entry will be reduced to what Darcy will indeed become - a footnote. Supersonicfan 03:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)