- Gina Ortiz Jones (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
This deletion review was closed as Redirect, yet I don't believe there was a consensus to redirect. Of the 16 total votes, there were 9 Keeps, 5 Redirects, and 2 Deletes. When I spoke to the closing administrator, they said the "Redirect" side had stronger arguments. However, 6 of the 9 Keep votes listed an official policy guideline as their reasoning, while only 2 of the 5 Redirect votes mentioned a policy guideline. Additionally, the article was greatly improved with more sources during the course of the discussion, and the 6 votes after the improvements were 5 Keeps and 1 Redirect. I believe this AFD should either be Relisted to gain further consensus, or closed as No Consensus. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I abstain from voting on deletion reviews on AfDs for which I've been a participant, but I agree with the result - basically a nine-to-seven when deletes are included. There wasn't a consensus to keep (as I noted in my argument on the page, several Keep votes noted/insinuated the AfD could be deleted if she were to lose the election, which isn't how notability works - specifically votes by Komitsuki, Kierzek and JaxisMaximus), there definitely wasn't a consensus to delete, and we typically redirect articles on most candidates who aren't otherwise notable on promotion, news, and recentism concerns. SportingFlyer talk 20:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to keep There was no consensus to redirect (even counting the delete !votes) and frankly HouseOfChange has the policy right--NPOL specifically defers to the GNG and says that if the person meets the GNG they meet the inclusion criteria. Now, we can imagine we'd get overly local sources supporting every candidate anywhere. But that strawman doesn't matter here, she has plenty of national-level coverage. (Correctly) arguing that some of the !votes to keep were wrong on policy isn't hugely relevant when nearly all those arguing to delete/redirect were relying on an essay or their thoughts on what policy should say (that those only known in the context of being a political candidate shouldn't get an article) rather than the actual policy as written. Hobit (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, NPOL does not "defer" to GNG. Candidates do not clear GNG just because media coverage of the campaign exists — media coverage of every election campaign always exists, so if campaign coverage were enough in and of itself to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL, then every candidate would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL. Campaign coverage makes a candidate a WP:BLP1E, not a ten-year test-passing topic of enduring notability, so it does not get a candidate over GNG in lieu of failing NPOL — a candidate only clears GNG if either (a) she already cleared GNG for other reasons before becoming a candidate, or (b) she's got a credible claim to being a special case, because her campaign coverage has exploded so far beyond the range of what's merely expected for every candidate in every election to always have (i.e. Christine O'Donnell) that even if she loses this fall she'll still be notable in 2028 anyway. But neither of those things are true here. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It literally says: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Of course, BLP1E is a thing, but "being a political candidate" is not a single event any more than "being an actor" is a single event. Hobit (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- An election campaign is an event for the purposes of BLP1E. An event is not just an incident that happens at a single moment in time — a process, such as an election campaign or a criminal trial which unfolds over several weeks, is still an event. An election campaign does not escape BLP1E just because it unfolds over several weeks and may comprise coverage of several discrete incidents of election speeches and public statements and controversies and the like — the whole shebang is still a single event no matter how many separate times her supporters hold rallies. Being an election candidate is not an occupation in and of itself, which is why your comparison to "being an actor" does not wash. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The close was appropriate and within the discretion of the closer. --Enos733 (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "No consensus" is more accurate. I note that the article contained substantial sourced content, and the redirect is to a section without prose, and so, prose content wise, it was a definite Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection, which is harsh. Very broadly, it was a case of WP:BIO1E, which envisions coverage of the person in the context of the event, but now there is no coverage, me calling table coverage non-coverage. WP:NPOL and failed candidates not being notable by default, OK maybe, in general, by default, but this was a runner-up candidate and the recipient of plenty of coverage. The coverage includes commentary outside of the election, although the coverage only happened because of the election. Definitely borderline. It was a harsh call (consensus to pseudo-delete) by the closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep or no-consensus This is an example of our very variable decisions on exactly the same situations=-dince this is an election year, there are quite a few of these. Persoqnlly I have always felt that in practice all candidates in a two party system like the US who win a major party's nomination for a national level office, such as Re[resentative in Congress, should have an article. Doing anything else is a measure of who happens to participate, along wit the extenst of searching for sources, the variable judgements about independence of sourcing, and the unetermiined question of whether Oneevent applies to a national level political event/ Even the redirect !votes said (for example) " There is a lot of coverage for this individual" , but said it related only to the lection--Ithink that'sselfcontradictory to the intent . It's time for some rationality. Perhaps the best way of handling this is to wait until there's a little morecoverage as we get to the elction, and the add it and restore, with the argument that the coverage relates to TWO events, hjer campaign in the primary, and the campaign in the gneeral election. I wish I had the time to do this with all the similar articles, but I will support any one who does. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. I ivoted keep and still view that as a legitimate analysis of the sources and policy. However I’m aware a significant minority of editors saw it differently, so as a matter of summarizing the AfD as a whole, I thought that was enough to call into question consensus to keep. What I did not see consensus for (either in the two consecutive AfDs or policy) is the idea of national-level election-related coverage being disqualified for GNG (and therefore the entry isn’t notable and should be redirected). I see some people, including the closer, thinking that coverage should be disqualified, but roughly as many saying it’s not, and no established policy to support the former, as Hobit points out. So actually I guess I do think keep had the stronger argument in policy, but enough people disagreed about what policy should be that I’d be inclined to be conservative and say no consensus. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus since I don't see a clear consensus to redirect and these candidates can be notable. Relisting the AfD is another option here. We should not disqualify election coverage in arguments for notability. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 13:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes we should, because election coverage always exists for every election. If coverage in the campaign context were all it took to say that a candidate had cleared GNG and was thus exempted from having to pass NPOL, then no candidate would ever fail GNG at all. So then we would always have to keep an article about every election candidate, and NPOL would automatically no longer have any meaning or application whatsoever. And anyway, principles like WP:BLP1E and the ten-year test still apply regardless of where anybody stands on the question of whether campaign coverage should be enough or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't directly relevant to the issue here, but we probably need to have a notability discussion for candidates somewhere as similar discussions are currently ongoing over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians with varied results. SportingFlyer talk 15:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did some searching - there are a couple recent discussions (2017 and one that appears still open) discussing the notability of political candidates. I'd argue the close was consistent with this policy view. [1] [2] SportingFlyer talk 18:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. We have an established consensus that if an election candidate was not already notable enough for an article for other reasons before becoming a candidate, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. And as I've explained above in response to a couple of people, the existence of some campaign-related coverage is not in and of itself to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL on the grounds that the campaign coverage has gotten her over GNG in lieu, because every candidate always gets enough campaign coverage to make that claim — so if we go with that interpretation instead of the existing consensus, then no candidate for anything is ever non-notable anymore and NPOL is automatically dead. Under the consensus as it actually stands, to get over GNG on campaign coverage alone a candidate would have to show that her coverage has exploded far out of scope with what every candidate gets, to the point that even if she loses this fall she'll still be notable ten years from now anyway — but the sourcing wasn't showing a credible reason why Gina Ortiz Jones passes that test yet. Of course the article can be recreated on or after election day if she wins — but nothing in the article constituted a credible reason why her candidacy has already made her permanently notable. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We pretty clearly do not
have an established consensus that if an election candidate was not already notable enough for an article for other reasons before becoming a candidate, then she has to win the election to become notable. Your O'Donnell example is one good index of this. All the keep votes in the two AfDs on this topic is another. I understand disagreement about where to draw the line on how much coverage is required before a candidate actually satisfies WP:BLP1E (which says we should only exclude biographies if all three of its criteria are met). But it's not consensus that campaign coverage is disqualified for GNG and only election can establish politician notability. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Christine O'Donnell is an unusual case, whose campaign coverage exploded to the point that she actually has a longer and better sourced article than the actual senator she lost to does — she got so much coverage that almost a full decade later, her name is still more readily recognizable to most people than Chris Coons' is. We most certainly do have a consensus that in normal circumstances, a candidate does not clear GNG on campaign coverage alone — in all but the most extreme special cases, a candidate must either win the election to become notable as a politician, or already have had enough preexisting notability to have qualified for an article for other reasons besides the candidacy anyway. A candidate only gets over GNG on campaign coverage per se if her campaign coverage explodes to Christine O'Donnell proportions, which this isn't even close to — if she neither wins the election nor has any preexisting notability for other reasons, then the campaign coverage only makes her notable in and of itself if it gets her out of the Wikipedia is not a news outlet camp and into the people will still be looking for this article ten years from now camp all by itself, which the overwhelming majority of candidates' campaign coverage does not.
As I already noted above, every candidate in every election always has some campaign coverage by definition — so if "some campaign coverage exists" were all it took to make a candidate notable in and of itself, then every candidate would always be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. But we have a consensus that every candidate is not always notable enough for a Wikipedia article — which means that the notability test for a candidate to become notable specifically because of her campaign coverage itself, without having preexisting notability for other reasons or actually winning the election in the end, is not "some campaign coverage exists" (a test which no candidate would ever fail at all), but "a Christine O'Donnell-esque volume of campaign coverage exists". Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
