Aleisha Allen ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This not the orignal 2018 version's consensus of ths page I want overturned but the recent speedy deletion of the new version by User:TomStar81. So the story was I originally see this page for what was at the time a misused redirect to one of the actress' roles in school of rock. I examined the previous AFD dicussion from 2018 featured above and I believe I could make and article for this actress as she is notable enough to get an article as almost every actor has their on wikipedia page nowadays. So I nominate the redirect on RFD and I'm encouraged to create an article and I quote from User:Mazca and User:Shhhnotsoloud ", either to encourage article creation or to avoid giving the impression that we have useful coverage on something we don't. On a brief look I'm not completely sure there's enough good coverage about her to write an article that demonstrates notability, but that possibility should certainly be encouraged." –from Mazca ,"to encourage article creation, and because Search gives better results." –from Shhhnotsoloud, source: 1 The redirect is close on November 10 and on the day of I start to get to work doing my research, I'm up hours finding reliable sources on this actress and I find two .edu pages and two .org pages about the actress and pathology career which I mention in her personal life. Then not even a day later the page got tagged with not one but two, nomination tags. One by User:CuteMeow who later reverted the tag after I talked it over with them. 2 and then a couple of hours later User:Noq places another speedy del tag on the page claiming it was under AFD G4 when it is not identical to its previous version from 2018. Section G4 specifically says "This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion." this isn't even the case and the deletion discussion is not recent being a 2 year old deletion discussion. I then attempted to contest the deletion but it was just ignored and deleted by User:TomStar81 in WP: IGNORINGATD-esque fashion. 3 This actress also doesn't fail WP:NACTOR becasue she was a secondary character in Are We There Yet and appeared in 130 episodes in Blue's Clue's as a main character in the sidetable drawer. This speedy deletion was unjust and want this page restored. I won't mind finding more reliable citations for this page if needed. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ ( talk) 14:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The consensus in the AfD was correctly assessed. You would need to come up with reliable, independent sources that hadn't been available to the participants in the discussion to show that the subject is indeed notable. ( t · c) buidhe 14:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ User:buidhe But this was a deletion dicussion from 2 years ago that I was not even involved in. I reffering to the recent unjust speedy del that claimed the more cited version I created was identical to the 2018 version And if you read my paragraph I said I found .edu sources and .org sources. Here are my sources: source 1, Source 2 and source 3. Sources 1 and 3 are sources citing her new proffession as a speech-language pathologist and it also supports that she went to pace university. Two org sources and one .edu source. I've also used a .gov source from the Library of Congress on this actress here Source 4. This article was just blindly speedy deleted and I hope you can changed your vote. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ ( talk) 14:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • None of these sources have significant, reliable, and independent coverage of the subject. ( t · c) buidhe 14:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn @ User:buidhe, Did you actually look at the sources I provided before making a decison that they were not significant? How is a .edu source not reliable or significant? .edu sources are some of the most reliable top Website sources on the internet. And a .gov source also is not reliable? Come on. Your'e starting to sound a little WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. If a .edu source is not reliable I don't know what is. These were the sources I used when descrbing her personal life as a Pathologist. I used the .gov source to verify her place of birth and middle name. If you need sources on her acting career I have those as well. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ ( talk) 14:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment The sources you mention above are not WP:significant coverage. They would not be enough to overturn the result of an AFD. noq ( talk) 16:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

@ User:Noq, Comment 2 These are, Let me explain why. On the article before it was deleted I used it to describe her personal life as a speech-language pathologist. She became a speech pathologist during her tenure from acting. And the .gov Library of congress source verifies her middle name and birth place. Those were just a couple of sources I used on the article. What sources of the person would be considered significant? I used other sources on the article verify certain movie performances. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ ( talk) 16:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I've read two of them. The first does not let me see it. Confirming DOB and middle name is not WP:Significant coverage and will not establish WP:notability. Being a speech language pathologist is not itself sufficient to be WP:notable. Nothing that I am seeing make me think the afd should be overridden. noq ( talk) 17:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

@ User:Noq, Okay we know she not notable for her pathology career but those are definitely relaible sources when descrbing her personal life as that was a section on the article. But here's some sources on her acting career enough to support her career as an actress. Source 5, Source 6 news article supporting her role as a main cast member on Blue's clues and on the film School of Rock And a new york times article talking about her support cast role in Are We There yet Source 7. I just found another source EW confirming her appearances in movies and TV see Source 8. How many more sources do you need for her actress verfication? ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ ( talk) 17:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Actress has no Oscar, Emmy, Tony, or Grammy awards for acting, now is she noted for having played a particularly famous role in film or on television. Her medical career shows no awards, prizes, or honors for MD related work. The last article version of the actress's entry prior to the original AFD nomination is located here (admin's eyes only, I'm afraid), and when the two versions are looked at the old one here and the new one from what was as I type this yesterday are not substantially different to negate CSD G4 criteria, nor does the new one clear A7 criteria. I know its not what you want to hear, but from where I sit the article's speedy deletion was correctly assessed and carried out. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Is this seriously your normal take on G4 and A7? I think you are really far off base. This article had sources--quite a few of them. Some of which potentially met WP:GNG. The deleted article did not, and the sources that are now there weren't discussed in the AfD. Further, that is a long acting career with a lot of shows. Clearly an assertion of importance (which the sources are too). I can understand making a mistake, but it sounds like on review you still feel you got this right. I feel pretty strongly that your standards for G4 and A7 are pretty far outside community norms. Hobit ( talk) 17:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

@ User:TomStar81, Your rationale behind speedy deleting the article is not justified. In the policy WP:NACTOR You have to pass one of those guidelines to have a page which she passes guideline one,"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Allen has had significant roles in movies and televison shows which I've already explained several times. Your talking about this actress like she was in the background of a obscure movie from the 50's. Just because said actress has not won a award does not mean her page should be just speedy deleted like that just because it was deleted per a non-recent dicussion. If that was the case why don't other child actors including her co-star Philip Daniel Bolden ,who has no citations or has not won any awards has an article? If your criteria was to apply to all Entertainer articles across wikipedia there would be way less article becasue a lot of Actors fit under those narrow standards. If these rules apply to this article they must apply to all the actor articles on wikipedia And this why I should have been able to see the previous version so I would know what to differentiate from it's 2018 counterpart. And since Your'e sticking with that A7 speedy deletion policy so much it says on the Credible claim of significance which is a extenstion of the A7,A9 and A11 criterion it says on the Pitfalls to avoid on number 3 "Therefore, a claim of significance need not pass any of the general or specialized notability guidelines, such as general notability guideline, music notability, or biography notability guideline." This means your criteria is wrong for it becasue she would not need to have won awards to have an article even though I mention on the article that she had been nominated three times for Young artist awards. Source 9. And on point 6 in the credible claim of signifcance it also says "Any statement which plausibly indicates that additional research (possibly offline, possibly in specialized sources) has a chance of demonstrating notability is a claim of significance." And I did hours on top of hours of research so I could have these sources. And this actress is notable for her role as "Lindsay" in Are We There yet and it's sequel and as "Alica" in School of Rock. It may be harder to find sources on the former actress becasue of her straying away from the limelight but just at least give me or another editor a second chance to create a well written sourced article that is not Identical to their previous incarnations. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ ( talk) 20:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

@ SomeBodyAnyBody05: I've gone ahead and nominated Philip Daniel Bolden for deletion as well, his AFD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Daniel Bolden, if you're interested. TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

One other thing, too: You can argue from CSD A7 and its criteria, but unless you can also address the G4 criteria the A7 argument will be moot because of the fallback position here. Make sure you include arguements for overturning both, otherwise one foot never will get out of the grave and the article will fall back into the hole and end up resting in piece whether or not you wanted that to be the outcome. TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

@ User:TomStar81, I myself want articles for most of the actors that don't fit your crtieria as long as you can find reliable ciatations like I did with the actress. So now that we dicussed the A7 issue what was the 2018 version like so I know what to improve or diffrentiate to not end up in that G4 loophole. Because that would be unproductive to the project with redlinks and needed articles. Because I would like to reach a consensus where we could have the ability to get better made article instead of having a no article is better use for wikipedia. And nobody but admins can't see the deleted version and that includes me becasue I'm not an admin. If I could see it I could adress the issue better.

I was also wondering if I could recieve a copy of the 2018 version so I could see what I would need to change so it would not fall under the principles for CSD G4 so I could set the foundation for the article without another speedy nomination tag. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ ( talk) 21:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Temp undeleted for discussion Wily D 14:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn This article should not have been speedy deleted. Send it to AfD instead to more thoroughly discuss the issues and sourcing. It is not a clear-cut case. Jehochman ^Talk 15:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• overturn speedy as far as I can tell the article deleted at AfD had no sources, this one has quite a few, some of which probably count toward WP:N. Not sure it will make it at AfD, but not a G4 IMO. Certainly not an A7. I mean, like not even a little. Hobit ( talk) 17:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse This is a really interesting one and we haven't had a good one like this here in awhile. The question in my mind is, how far does the WP:G4 line extend? The new version has sources and doesn't technically appear based on the old article, but it still reads in a substantially similar manner. The G4 is also technically uncontroversial, as the user challenging is also the creator of the new article. Speedy deletions are intended to reduce the amount of time spent on deletions in obvious cases, and I think this is an obvious case. However, I acknowledge other users may be a bit more lenient in their interpretations, i.e. adding additional sources would make a G4 improper, and I don't think this is an unreasonable interpretation of G4, and while I might also have that interpretation for other articles I still think these are substantially similar and the article certain to be deleted again. I will say I have no idea why A7 is even an issue here, as this seems to be in a different universe than the one A7 operates in. SportingFlyer T· C 18:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ User:SportingFlyer, Your'e right about it not being a A7 claim but there are noticeable differeces to not fall under G4 as G4 states "This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title". The 2018 version does not feature any thing about her personal life and career as a speech-language pathologist and her career section is noticeably smaller and stub like. And how am I (the creator) as non-admin supposed to know how to differentiate from the previous version if I can't see it unless I am a sysop? The reliable references should be enough to not match the two versions. There should at least be another chance for this article to be made by me or another editor.

• Well, the thing that strikes me when comparing the two articles is that the articles are similar enough that when comparing, the new version reads like an attempt to get around a copyright violation. The prose is technically different, but the cadence is exceptionally similar and has many similarities. An additional paragraph on her post-career personal life is sourced to primary references and looks like it might be a BLP violation doesn't make this so "unsufficient" that I think a G4 isn't warranted. I'm also not opposed to someone recreating this, but passing a notability threshold seems very difficult to me. SportingFlyer T· C 23:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse this is one of the grey areas of G4: although the recreated version is different and has sources, it still has the same problems as the version deleted at AfD and the arguments made there still apply. The sources don't look like the sort of thing which could possibly indicate that the subject passes the GNG, they are to trivial coverage, unreliable sources, or material written by the subject. One of the citations is to a copy of the deleted Wikipedia article. The subject hasn't had any new roles since the AfD so I don't think the roles claimed will make any difference either. Although strictly this should go to AfD to evaluate the sources I don't think it has any chance at all there so I don't think we should.

As an aside the "personal life" section is a clear BLP violation which should be removed if the article is restored. It claims the subject has taken a break from acting and is now pursuing a different career instead, but this has been inferred from primary sources showing that someone with the same name is pursuing that different career. There's nothing to indicate that these are the same person and no mention of a career break. If we get this wrong - if we claim the subject isn't acting any more and she is looking for acting work - then that could have an impact on her career. Hut 8.5 09:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

@ User:Hut 8.5, It's the same person, It is confirmed on the subject's social media page. And on top of that the subject is doing her pathology work in New York. And the references I included mentioned her full name, Aleisha l. Allen. the reference also says she is an instructor at the same university she went to as a student, Columbia University Source 11. This why you must look at the sources before you critique them saying it's a BLP violation. I did hours of research and I found another source that I can add to her personal life so it shouldn't get deleted. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ ( talk) 13:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply

[1] says that Columbia University has a fee paying instructor called Aleisha Allen, it doesn't follow that the subject is doing that work now. Same for the other similar sources. You put these together to say that the subject is on a "hiatus from acting", which isn't in any of the sources. Aside from possibly the middle initial you have absolutely nothing to connect the two people, none of the sources for this part mention acting at all. I don't think the middle initial is enough and in any case you didn't cite a reliable source for it - [2] says it's "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!", in other words someone will print out the contents of the deleted Wikipedia page if you pay them money. BLPs such as this one should be based on secondary sources, and definitely shouldn't be basing chunks of content on editors' interpretations of primary sources such as these. See WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY for the relevant policies. Hut 8.5 18:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I missed using the old wikipedia article as a source since I just did a diff comparison - that explains why they read very similarly even if all the words are in different order. SportingFlyer T· C 14:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• List at AfD. We usually say that if a re-created article gives plausible sources that weren't considered at the AfD, then that inoculates it against G4. I'd !vote "delete" at that AfD, but I think it does need to happen.— S Marshall  T/ C 15:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy and send to AfD Speedy deletions are intended only for obvious, uncontroversial cases that clearly and unambiguously meet one or more specific and intentionally narrow criteria. There is a very good case to be made that this article is not substantially identical to the 2018 version and makes several credible claims of significance, which disqualifies it for both G4 and A7. I think the article has a very poor chance of being kept at AfD, but we should take care to follow proper process here. I'm no more a fan of bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake than anyone else, but article deletion is one area where circumventing the process is a dangerous precedent to set. CThomas³ ( talk) 02:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn It will need a second AfD. Speedy is for deletions that noboidy would reasonably question--if it isn't obvious, it should go to AfD. If non-trivial sources are added, it isn;'t obvious. If despite them, thesubject is still non-notable , that will be determined atAfD2. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy and send to AfD if desired, with any offending BLP material excised in the mean time as appropriate, per Hobit and DGG. Jclemens ( talk) 07:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Loren Culp ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe the decision failed to give proper weight to arguments based on policy rather than arguments based on politics ( WP:IDONTLIKEIT because he's a Republican in a deep blue state). As a major party candidate for governor of a state, this subject received substantial coverage of their biography, so a quality article could easily be written about them. Please check Google News to see how many sources are available. Jehochman ^Talk 13:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (for the avoidance of doubt) - I get it that the result was redirect, which in normal conditions is form of keep. But in this case the redirect was protected to prevent the article from being recreated and the closing admin said, Protected "Loren Culp": Edit-warring against AfD consensus. Anyone wishing to recreate this will need to challenge the AfD consensus at an appropriate venue and/or provide genuinely new evidence of notability, that should likely be run through a talk page discussion first. So here we are having that required discussion. Vandamond, thank you for all your work at XFD. To be clear, I do not think you have done anything ignoble. This decision just needs a broader review and more opinions to hopefully come to the correct conclusion. Why choose this venue rather than the article talk page? I want to generate new opinions and more opinions. This page gets more attention. Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Vanamonde correctly assessed the consensus in the discussion. Jehochman does not provide any new information or sources that were not available at the time of the discussion. I think that we should focus on giving Culp due coverage on the article about the election, rather than a standalone article, because he is basically known only for the one event. ( t · c) buidhe 13:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  Did you check this link that I provided? [3]. If none of that is new, then the decision was clearly wrong at the time it was made. Please consider WP:BIO1E, If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. This is not a low profile person so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Jehochman ^Talk 14:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I stand by my closure. The notability of political candidates has always been a thorny issue, but in this case the arguments that a) coverage independent of the election didn't exist and b) the total volume of coverage was insufficient to overcome BLP1E, were persuasive. It's been a month since the AfD was closed: if more coverage has been found since, that's not an argument to overturn the AfD, but to recreate the article (which is not something I'd personally recommend as yet). Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

We can't recreate the article, as far as I know, because you protected the redirect. I think the sheer volume of news coverage, now that the election has concluded provides more than enough material to write an article. In addition, I believe your interpretation is WP:BLP1E is flat out wrong. BLP1E does not say all biographies deriving coverage from one event are non-notable. There is a test, specifically one that asks whether the subject is "low profile" and likely to remain low profile. This subject ran for governor of a state the size and population of many countries. He was not a minor party candidate. He represented a major party and received 1.7 million votes. This is not a low profile person. Jehochman ^Talk 16:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

A protected redirect does not make it impossible to recreate an article. Please familiarize yourself with our WP:DRAFT process, which allows you to work on proposed articles for review. Bearcat ( talk) 17:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I am listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants, so I am kind of aware of that. However, with a protected redirect, that's a strong disincentive. I would be satisfied if the protection were removed and then we let editing take its natural course. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I protected the redirect because people chose to edit-war over it, rather than challenging the AfD result at the appropriate venue. Simply recreating it would be perpetuating that, and is not what I'm recommending; but if the individual's notability has changed, any changes to consensus could be assessed via the draft process or a talk page discussion. None of that requires arguing that the original result was invalid, which I'm still not seeing evidence for. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Like it or not, we have an established consensus that candidates for political office are not "inherently" or enduringly notable just for being candidates per se — to qualify for an article without having to hold a notable office, a candidate must either (a) demonstrate that he was already notable enough for other reasons (e.g. having already held a different lower but notable political office, such as serving in the state legislature) that he would already have gotten an article anyway, or (b) he has a credible claim to being a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm, such that even though he lost the election he would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance. The fact that some campaign coverage exists is not, in and of itself, enough to get a candidate over the notability bar just for being a candidate, because every candidate can always show evidence that campaign coverage existed — so if the existence of campaign coverage were enough to exempt an unelected candidate from having to pass NPOL, then NPOL itself would be completely meaningless, because no candidate ever fails to have coverage and thus nobody would ever actually have to pass NPOL at all anymore. And exactly zero people said anything whatsoever in the AFD discussion about how he should be deleted just because he's a Republican in a blue state — so asserting that such an argument should have been dismissed is a moot point, given that nobody made that argument in the first place. Bearcat ( talk) 17:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  I think you are mis-stating the consensus. I agree with your position with regard to local officials such as mayors. Here we are considering a major party candidate for Governor of Washington State. This person garnered 1.7 million votes and there are dozens and dozens of news articles about them. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  I'm not missstating the consensus; we very definitely do not have any consensus that losing candidates for governor are automatically treated as more special than losing candidates for other offices, or any consensus that the number of votes a person does or doesn't get in the process of losing has any bearing on making them notable. As I pointed out, every candidate in every election everywhere can always show enough campaign coverage to claim that they pass WP:GNG and are therefore exempted from WP:NPOL — so if that were how it worked, then NPOL itself would be entirely meaningless, because no candidate for anything would ever be unable to exempt themselves from it.
  GNG, at its core, is not just about counting the number of footnotes and keeping anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number: we also evaluate factors like geographic and temporal range of coverage and the context of what the person is getting covered for, and we have an established consensus that simply being an unsuccessful candidate for political office is not a context that clinches notability all by itself, precisely because we do not want to turn into a repository of campaign brochures for unelected political candidates. The question a candidate has to answer is not "does campaign coverage exist", it is "does a reason exist why he would pass the ten year test for enduring significance?" Bearcat ( talk) 22:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Wrong decision, weak endorse close We aren't sure where we are on articles like this. I'd hope we have gotten back to the idea that you can't be excluded from having an article when you have otherwise passing coverage just because you ran for election. But this discussion didn't go that way. I'd most certainly have !voted to keep and think this is a silly outcome, but I don't know how else the closer could have closed it. Hobit ( talk) 16:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  This, I agree with: we're in a grey area with respect to political candidates who gain coverage simply because they're running for a prominent position. As a community we need to sort out how we treat election-related coverage (just as we've had to have extensive discussions about local coverage, press releases, routine coverage, etc for local figures, corporations, athletes, etc). Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  There is a brief discussion about trying to get started on an RfC this weekend on my talk page. We'll ping a bunch of people if we make enough progress (or if interested in helping the first phase, anyone can just pipe up there)... Hobit ( talk) 17:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  Well, the area really isn't all that grey - we typically do not keep people who are only notable for losing an election for a large number of different reasons. This really comes up every two years and coincides with American politics, as this is generally an American problem due to the self-promotional nature of their election system. I'm not going to endorse this, even though it was correctly decided, because I participated in the discussion, but I absolutely want to push back on the reason why this is at DRV: my !vote was not an WP:IDONTLIKEIT on political grounds, as was said in the DRV nom, but rather because I didn't believe he had any notability apart from being a losing candidate, and I want Wikipedia to remain consistent on how it treats these sorts of articles. SportingFlyer T· C 18:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  Devil's advocate: it's this person notable under WP:GNG because there's been a large amount of fulsome news coverage, plenty sufficient to write a nice biography about them with good references? The fact that they win or lose should not determine their notability. The question is how much material has been produced about them and does it cover their full life story or just one event. This person has multiple biographic articles written about them in independent media. Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  That argument was considered and correctly rejected at the AfD. Just because someone gets coverage does not mean they are entitled to a Wikipedia article, and this is not the place to re-litigate an AfD. SportingFlyer T· C 19:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  Entitled? I don't think anyone, or anything, is entitled to an article. The question is if they meet our requirements for having one. Hobit ( talk) 23:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  You are correct that no one is entitled to an article, but that wasn't my argument, which was vaguely waving at voters who !vote keep on "passes GNG" grounds when perfectly valid WP:NOT reasons exist for deletion. SportingFlyer T· C 23:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  You and I have gone back-and-forth on this enough times, I'll just leave it at the fact that I disagree with you strongly on that issue. Hobit ( talk) 01:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the discussion definitely had a consensus for delete/redirect. There is a widespread opinion, even a consensus, that we shouldn't have standalone articles on people whose notability is as an unsuccessful political candidate, in particular because unsuccessful candidates usually don't have lasting significance. This is a reasonable reading of various policies/guidelines ( WP:BLP1E / WP:BIO1E / WP:NOTNEWS / WP:NPOL). The only way this could be closed as Keep is if the closer decided to downweight that argument, and they were perfectly justified in not doing so. Hut 8.5 09:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Endorse we have an inconsistent and maddening approach to what gets an article and why but NPOL is well established and has very wide community support. Coverage in the context of an election is kind of ONEEVENT and INHERITED from the election and the consensus is that you need to win for the election coverage to count towards individual notability. Is that right? Dunno, but its what the community has decided and AFD or DRV are not places to pick and choose unless the policy or sng is manifestly not supported by wider community consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn No matter how long standing the consensus, it never had copmplete agreement, and this particular instance shows how unrealistic it is. Coverage in the context of an election is why politicans get covered in the firstp lace; it's the defining event that makes them politicians. Oneevent is inapplicable--it's meant for minor temporary local celebrities or short0term coverage of a crime. There are no valid NOT reasons here: the only possible NOT criterion is NOT INDISCRIMINATE and NOT NEWS. This isn't indiscriminate--what would be indiscriminate is covering every local office, or everybody who runs in a primary. A person to get this far is quite unsual--in fact, it's just as unusual in a two part system as being the winning candidate. This doesn't fall under NOT NEWS, because it is part of the major political events in the recent election. Who won what, and the people involved, for posts at the congressional and state governor level is what makes history. It's in fact the basis of history , and it is impossible to understand the reason for the winning candidate unless you also look at the opponent. That this particular Republican candidate lost at this particular time is not temporary news, but of permanent interest. (I suggest, if this does not get overturned, trying in a few months to see if a more extended article could be written; and similarly for at least the others in the Senate and governorship races). I think consensus will change if the articles for the losing candidates are good enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Those arguments were considered by !voters at the AfD and rejected 10:3. It's not a reason to discount the redirect/delete !voters. SportingFlyer T· C 15:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn The coverage is substantial, statewide, and meets GNG; his being a political candidate doesn't fundamentally change that. Will he have enduring notability? Uncertain. The bigger story isn't that Culp lost to Inslee, but rather that Culp, the entire police force ('chief' with no subordinates) of an inconsequential town became the Republican gubernatorial nominee. That's an interesting thing to consider and an article worth having, so trying to trump GNG with a politician SNG doesn't particularly make sense. Jclemens ( talk) 07:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Culp was a very significant political figure in Washington prior to the election. He stood up to the gun control measure, I-1639 passed in 2018, that was extremely controversial and started the movement for other law enforcement agencies to make similar policies to not enforce the initiative. The fact that a police officer from a one cop town could go on to become one of two candidates making it to the general election for the highest office in Washington shows his significance. The fact that every single Seattle City Council member has their own page and people are refusing to give Loren Culp a page is a shame. BlackBird1008 ( talk) 19:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to Keep - the argument the article meets WP:N is convincingly demonstrated, while the argument that it doesn't meet NPOL isn't argued, it's merely asserted (and given that NPOL says politicians are notable if they meet WP:N, the argument is demonstrably false). It's also asserted it fails WP:BLP1E, but that's also demonstrably false (which Tim Smith demonstrates in the discussion - it appears to be the result of the common confusion who aren't familiar with BLP1E who think it applies to people notable for an event, rather than people notable only for their role in one event. Ultimately, there's really no argument presented for deletion/redirection that isn't demonstrably false. Wily D 08:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Vanamonde correctly assessed the consensus in the discussion. I believe there will be additional discussions about how WP:NPOL is interpreted or changed, but there was no other way to close this discussion. (voted redirect in the AFD). -- Enos733 ( talk) 18:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply