- 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. Valid WP:COI concerns have been raised, but the overall consensus suggests this individual is notable. The content should be closely monitored but the consensus seems to support the existence of an article in some form. ~ mazca talk 01:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Kara Eastman
- Kara Eastman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
She won the primary election last night and will face the incumbent in November. But, primary elections are not covered by WP:NPOLITICIAN. She therefore needs to meet WP:GNG, and that is dubious. Much coverage is coming out today, like this from CNN, but notice how little it talks about the candidate, but rather about the election and the "blue wave" nationally. The headline is "Democrats' anti-Trump resistance scores a big primary win in Nebraska", not "Eastman scores a big primary win in Nebraska". Similarly, the coverage in the article that is secondary is of the election, not about the candidate. And many of the citations in the article are not independent of the subject. Citations exist to her own website. And the Justice Democrats website is also certainly not independent of the subject as they are partisan and have endorsed the candidate. I also see citations to DCCC.org and FEC.gov; these are not citations that establish notability. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion - Please see my response on the talk page; a minority of sources covering her now are simply talking about the election, contrary to your arguments. Sure, that one CNN article is focusing on the Democrats as a whole, but what about Who is Kara Eastman? First-time female candidate stuns Democratic establishment in Nebraska's primaries (Newsweek), Pro-Abortion Rights Progressive Wins Nebraska Democratic House Primary (Huffington Post), Medicare-For-All progressive woman wins surprise victory in key Nebraska house primary (Vox), and others? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 16:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion - To say Eastman isn't notable couldn't be further from the truth. Here are a list of independent sources that have covered Eastman (and articles are coming out literally as I type this):
- Associated Press + Yahoo News https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/political-newcomer-kara-eastman-wins-democratic-nomination-in-nebraska-congressional-race/2018/05/16/efbfe050-58c8-11e8-9889-07bcc1327f4b_story.html?utm_term=.a40d5a13c599 https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-eastman-wins-dem-nod-nebraskas-2nd-district-052016433--election.html
Delete: this is a classic WP:NPOL case. There is a lot of coverage of her surrounding her current political candidacy, but that's not typically enough to warrant keeping an article. We need to see significant coverage of her apart from her candidacy to establish that she is notable. If she wins the general, she'll have an article, but she doesn't meet our typical notability threshold for politicians just yet. Marquardtika ( talk) 17:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: Article has plenty of reliable sources. Eastman's primary win was over a previous incumbent of the seat, and got national attention. I agree that attention to her might be temporary, but Wikipedia has many articles on topics on which attention was temporary. In this case, we serve readers by giving them a neutral encyclopedia article that unifies statements from other sources. --
econterms (
talk)
- Nope, not how WP:GNG works. Her notability is either WP:LASTING or it isn't. Defeating a "previous incumbent" doesn't make her automatically notable, her primary election getting national attention doesn't automatically make her notable either. We don't "serve readers" by diluting GNG. They can find any info they need on Ballotpedia, a site that serves to present all candidates for office. – Muboshgu ( talk) 18:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- WP:LASTING refers to events which may be precursors to other events; Notability is not temporary. WP:GNG requires the following criteria to be met:
- "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that
no original research is needed to extract the content.
Done - "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow
verifiable evaluation of notability, per
the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass
published works in all forms and media, and
in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Done
- "Sources" should be
secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Done
- "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Done (Far more websites than just the official campaign website are cited, even for content about the campaign and the policies advocated for)
- "Presumed" means that significant coverage
in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates
what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Done
- Please keep in mind that while being a candidate does not provide inherent notability, it also does not inherently mean there is a lack of notability. Even failed politicians ranging from Evan McMullin to Vermin Supreme have proven notable enough for Wikipedia because of the amount of attention they received, and because of their actions outside of their respective elections; we already have several sources on Kara Eastman's non-profit work as the founder of the Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Replying to Muboshgu: I didn't comment on GNG. I said I thought the article should be kept, and why. Ballotpedia is good but we can offer something different here. Ballotpedia is good but I don't think readers "can find any info they need on Ballotpedia" which tends to leave out narrative and context. The case for deleting looks like the deletion cases for Archie Parnell and for Mark Harris (North Carolina politician). These are characters who did surprisingly well in some kind of election and got a bunch of press coverage but haven't won an important office yet. They represent threads of important political movements, movements that are probably significant, historic, or lasting. Like those articles, we should keep this one. I don't see value in bringing them to AfD and having lengthy unpleasant legalistic words about it. I wish you hadn't. -- econterms ( talk) 05:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment to all regarding WP:NPOL: Please read points two and three of NPOL:
- Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
- 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".
I argue that the recent coverage from third party / non-local sources satisfies this criteria. Cheers. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete A beautiful test of WP:NPOL. Her only claim to notability is being a candidate, and not only that, her candidacy is upcoming. Importantly, she would not pass WP:GNG for any of her other works. Notability is not temporary, and it is possible she could be a losing candidate and still end up passing WP:GNG, but notability aside, this article could fall afoul of both WP:TOOSOON, WP:PROMO and WP:NOTNEWS, the very things we should be careful about in keeping an article regarding an upcoming candidate. SportingFlyer talk 20:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Please note that WP:NOTNEWS covers day-to-day stories, specifically mentioning stories like routine sports games or the lives of celebrities, stories that bear no significance. As for the other policies you've mentioned, I disagree that this is WP:TOOSOON as I argue that she has already achieved enough notability to have an article. I genuinely don't see how this is WP:PROMO though, the article originally had problems with reading like an advert but once I went to the talk page requesting input from others on how that can be solved, the nom stated that they initially took too cursory a glance at the article and then removed the advertisement template. I think the real discussion here is regarding whether or not we should discount the coverage she is receiving nationally for her victory and by extension coverage of her not-for-profit; the claim about WP:PROMO is dismissed as it was never substantiated. I suspect that we likely wouldn't be proposing deletion if it was a stub about the Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance with a few sources like the ones we've found, but interestingly the arguments for deletion due to lack of notability emerge once large, national-level outlets put them in the spotlight. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree with you. Please note the enduring notability test of WP:NOTNEWS. I may have missed one or two, but all of the sources provided have been produced in the last 24 hours. Also WP:PROMO is always a fear with an unelected candidate, and many of the sections of the page would also appear on her campaign website (issues/endorsements, et cetera) and are not encyclopaedic. Finally, she is not notable for being aligned with the Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance. SportingFlyer talk 21:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- The enduring notability test is actually precisely what I was referring to in my previous post: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" As for WP:PROMO, I request that you find a specific example of where this is problematic, as the advertisement warning template was removed by the same editor that put it there shortly after I requested the specific examples needing attention. I don't think it's a sufficient argument to say that it's an article on a candidate, therefore it's automatic and inherent that WP:PROMO is a fear. We need specific areas to address. The sections that draw information from campaign websites are reinforced with local sources, sources from other states, and national sources. As for your last point, I disagree for two reasons. The first being that she is not simply aligned with it, but is both the founder and CEO of the non-profit organization, which has in fact received reliable, secondary coverage by news sources. If she wasn't also a candidate, this would simply be an article about that, albeit one out of countless short articles not threatened by potential deletion. In the event that there would truly be nothing left if we took out the campaign, then I'd concede that the article is just about that, but that's simply not the case. Per the reasons described in detail, she passes every point of NPOL and GNG, and the article does neither violates NOTNEWS nor PROMO. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- I still disagree. First, this coverage is not yet enduring, therefore it is WP:TOOSOON at best. Second, compare her article to Ashford's or Bacon's. Hers features issues and endorsements, whereas Bacon's features his positions as opposed to issues. Third, there's no way she would achieve independent notability for being the CEO of her company, and there's not enough sourcing there to show that anyways. The source on that one is primary. She passes neither NPOL or GNG, and we'll have to agree to disagree on that. SportingFlyer talk 22:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'm waiting until Friday to !vote, but this should probably redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2018 rather than being deleted. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with this solution. SportingFlyer talk 23:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect I don't see enough for a stand-alone article now. The Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance isn't prominent enough to make her notable based off of that, and the election coverage isn't so unusually prominent to avoid the general rule against candidates for office being notable based off coverage of their campaign. Even if she loses the general election, it's possible that in a few years she will be notable due to future accomplishments. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2018. The election is notable, even if the candidate may not be. -- Enos733 ( talk) 04:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment A redirect is much preferable to deletion as it would send users desiring relevant information about the subject to an article that provides it, though my !vote still currently favors keeping it. In the event that the article is deleted or redirected but later becomes relevant in November if she becomes a congresswoman, I will archive a copy of the article into my userspace so the article would not need to be remade from a blank page. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 13:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2018; no notability/press coverage independent of her campaign for this seat. Mélencron ( talk) 15:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Meets Lasting and GNG per sourcing. The primary win received national attention. We have other articles on people who are most notable for contesting a congressional election (not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, just an observation.) ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 17:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I looked up the subject of the article in Google and I can see there are dozens of articles that include significant coverage about her, including in several national sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] There are many more citations in the article. The article easily passes WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources, and considering she won the nomination for her party, it's very likely she will get significantly more coverage this year. I don't see any benefit to deleting this article. WP:POLITICIAN states "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'." That is definitely the case here. Lonehexagon ( talk) 02:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- My issue with the sources you've presented is that five out of the six of them are all from the same date, with the other from the week before. (Same problem with the articles presented above.) She may very well be notable by November, but merely winning a primary does not make one notable under
WP:BLP1E. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person, with the event in this instance being the election.
SportingFlyer
talk 05:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- According to the guidelines,
WP:BLP1E applies when all three are true: 1.) "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." This doesn't apply because there is more than one event described in the article including her candidacy announcement and her primary win. There is also discussion of her campaign that is published between those events. 2.) "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." That does not apply here as she is now a main candidate. It is likely she will receive even more coverage as a nominated candidate than she did before she won the nomination. 3.) "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Her becoming a candidate is significant (as evidenced by national attention) and her role is substantial as she's the main person in the event. Zero of the three required criteria for
WP:BLP1E applies to this candidate.
Lonehexagon (
talk) 05:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Fair, I misread it as an or. I still don't think lasting notability has been shown.
SportingFlyer
talk 05:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- But you do agree that
WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here? What guideline do you believe indicates that she is not notable?
Lonehexagon (
talk) 05:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- WP:BLP1E does apply here. Our usual standard for evaluating candidates for office is the internationalization of coverage. If a newspaper in Germany provides significant coverage of a candidate from Canada, then we know something special is about the candidate and not the campaign. We have constantly treated the campaign as one event (from speculation about who might run to post election events (see United States presidential election, 2020)). Secondly, unelected candidates are very likely to return and remain low profile individuals after the election (and unless there is something unique about a candidate or their platform, nearly all long term value can be kept in the page about the campaign [see my comment below to Deb]). Everything on this subject's page can be added to United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2018 and nothing would be lost. If the subject wins, of course a new page would be created. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- But you do agree that
WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here? What guideline do you believe indicates that she is not notable?
Lonehexagon (
talk) 05:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Fair, I misread it as an or. I still don't think lasting notability has been shown.
SportingFlyer
talk 05:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- According to the guidelines,
WP:BLP1E applies when all three are true: 1.) "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." This doesn't apply because there is more than one event described in the article including her candidacy announcement and her primary win. There is also discussion of her campaign that is published between those events. 2.) "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." That does not apply here as she is now a main candidate. It is likely she will receive even more coverage as a nominated candidate than she did before she won the nomination. 3.) "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Her becoming a candidate is significant (as evidenced by national attention) and her role is substantial as she's the main person in the event. Zero of the three required criteria for
WP:BLP1E applies to this candidate.
Lonehexagon (
talk) 05:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- My issue with the sources you've presented is that five out of the six of them are all from the same date, with the other from the week before. (Same problem with the articles presented above.) She may very well be notable by November, but merely winning a primary does not make one notable under
WP:BLP1E. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person, with the event in this instance being the election.
SportingFlyer
talk 05:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, but stick a big COI notice at the top. Let the reader beware. Deb ( talk) 17:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Resorting to COI tags is not how Wikipedia works, or should work. It is the same reason we do not move to draft space the pages of deleted candidates (see
WP:POLOUTCOMES). What is appropriate, and a usual outcome, is a redirect to the article "detailing the specific race in question, such as
United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010." In that space, certain biographical details can be added, as well as endorsements, polling, and other elections-related information. The problem with keeping articles about unelected candidates is two-fold. The first is that most candidates are low-profile individuals outside the context of their campaign; the second is that Wikipedia should not be a repository of campaign brochures, or a space for candidates (or their supporters) to push their vision and ideology. --
Enos733 (
talk) 03:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is clearly a COI involved in the editing, but the subject's status does not allow for deletion on the grounds of notability. Deb ( talk) 07:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with Deb. The abundance of secondary sources that put what would otherwise be a local congressional race in the midwest to the national spotlight demonstrates notability; this is all that matters with regard to deletion. However, even if COI was grounds for deletion, the same user that initiated the nomination for deletion and added to the talk page a warning about a potential COI from Ottoshade agreed that the article doesn't actually contain any problematic advertorial content, meaning that this isn't actually a concern. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Resorting to COI tags is not how Wikipedia works, or should work. It is the same reason we do not move to draft space the pages of deleted candidates (see
WP:POLOUTCOMES). What is appropriate, and a usual outcome, is a redirect to the article "detailing the specific race in question, such as
United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010." In that space, certain biographical details can be added, as well as endorsements, polling, and other elections-related information. The problem with keeping articles about unelected candidates is two-fold. The first is that most candidates are low-profile individuals outside the context of their campaign; the second is that Wikipedia should not be a repository of campaign brochures, or a space for candidates (or their supporters) to push their vision and ideology. --
Enos733 (
talk) 03:49, 22 May 2018 (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.
- 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. Valid WP:COI concerns have been raised, but the overall consensus suggests this individual is notable. The content should be closely monitored but the consensus seems to support the existence of an article in some form. ~ mazca talk 01:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Kara Eastman
- Kara Eastman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
She won the primary election last night and will face the incumbent in November. But, primary elections are not covered by WP:NPOLITICIAN. She therefore needs to meet WP:GNG, and that is dubious. Much coverage is coming out today, like this from CNN, but notice how little it talks about the candidate, but rather about the election and the "blue wave" nationally. The headline is "Democrats' anti-Trump resistance scores a big primary win in Nebraska", not "Eastman scores a big primary win in Nebraska". Similarly, the coverage in the article that is secondary is of the election, not about the candidate. And many of the citations in the article are not independent of the subject. Citations exist to her own website. And the Justice Democrats website is also certainly not independent of the subject as they are partisan and have endorsed the candidate. I also see citations to DCCC.org and FEC.gov; these are not citations that establish notability. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion - Please see my response on the talk page; a minority of sources covering her now are simply talking about the election, contrary to your arguments. Sure, that one CNN article is focusing on the Democrats as a whole, but what about Who is Kara Eastman? First-time female candidate stuns Democratic establishment in Nebraska's primaries (Newsweek), Pro-Abortion Rights Progressive Wins Nebraska Democratic House Primary (Huffington Post), Medicare-For-All progressive woman wins surprise victory in key Nebraska house primary (Vox), and others? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 16:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion - To say Eastman isn't notable couldn't be further from the truth. Here are a list of independent sources that have covered Eastman (and articles are coming out literally as I type this):
- Associated Press + Yahoo News https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/political-newcomer-kara-eastman-wins-democratic-nomination-in-nebraska-congressional-race/2018/05/16/efbfe050-58c8-11e8-9889-07bcc1327f4b_story.html?utm_term=.a40d5a13c599 https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-eastman-wins-dem-nod-nebraskas-2nd-district-052016433--election.html
Delete: this is a classic WP:NPOL case. There is a lot of coverage of her surrounding her current political candidacy, but that's not typically enough to warrant keeping an article. We need to see significant coverage of her apart from her candidacy to establish that she is notable. If she wins the general, she'll have an article, but she doesn't meet our typical notability threshold for politicians just yet. Marquardtika ( talk) 17:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: Article has plenty of reliable sources. Eastman's primary win was over a previous incumbent of the seat, and got national attention. I agree that attention to her might be temporary, but Wikipedia has many articles on topics on which attention was temporary. In this case, we serve readers by giving them a neutral encyclopedia article that unifies statements from other sources. --
econterms (
talk)
- Nope, not how WP:GNG works. Her notability is either WP:LASTING or it isn't. Defeating a "previous incumbent" doesn't make her automatically notable, her primary election getting national attention doesn't automatically make her notable either. We don't "serve readers" by diluting GNG. They can find any info they need on Ballotpedia, a site that serves to present all candidates for office. – Muboshgu ( talk) 18:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- WP:LASTING refers to events which may be precursors to other events; Notability is not temporary. WP:GNG requires the following criteria to be met:
- "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that
no original research is needed to extract the content.
Done - "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow
verifiable evaluation of notability, per
the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass
published works in all forms and media, and
in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Done
- "Sources" should be
secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Done
- "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Done (Far more websites than just the official campaign website are cited, even for content about the campaign and the policies advocated for)
- "Presumed" means that significant coverage
in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates
what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Done
- Please keep in mind that while being a candidate does not provide inherent notability, it also does not inherently mean there is a lack of notability. Even failed politicians ranging from Evan McMullin to Vermin Supreme have proven notable enough for Wikipedia because of the amount of attention they received, and because of their actions outside of their respective elections; we already have several sources on Kara Eastman's non-profit work as the founder of the Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Replying to Muboshgu: I didn't comment on GNG. I said I thought the article should be kept, and why. Ballotpedia is good but we can offer something different here. Ballotpedia is good but I don't think readers "can find any info they need on Ballotpedia" which tends to leave out narrative and context. The case for deleting looks like the deletion cases for Archie Parnell and for Mark Harris (North Carolina politician). These are characters who did surprisingly well in some kind of election and got a bunch of press coverage but haven't won an important office yet. They represent threads of important political movements, movements that are probably significant, historic, or lasting. Like those articles, we should keep this one. I don't see value in bringing them to AfD and having lengthy unpleasant legalistic words about it. I wish you hadn't. -- econterms ( talk) 05:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment to all regarding WP:NPOL: Please read points two and three of NPOL:
- Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
- 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".
I argue that the recent coverage from third party / non-local sources satisfies this criteria. Cheers. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete A beautiful test of WP:NPOL. Her only claim to notability is being a candidate, and not only that, her candidacy is upcoming. Importantly, she would not pass WP:GNG for any of her other works. Notability is not temporary, and it is possible she could be a losing candidate and still end up passing WP:GNG, but notability aside, this article could fall afoul of both WP:TOOSOON, WP:PROMO and WP:NOTNEWS, the very things we should be careful about in keeping an article regarding an upcoming candidate. SportingFlyer talk 20:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Please note that WP:NOTNEWS covers day-to-day stories, specifically mentioning stories like routine sports games or the lives of celebrities, stories that bear no significance. As for the other policies you've mentioned, I disagree that this is WP:TOOSOON as I argue that she has already achieved enough notability to have an article. I genuinely don't see how this is WP:PROMO though, the article originally had problems with reading like an advert but once I went to the talk page requesting input from others on how that can be solved, the nom stated that they initially took too cursory a glance at the article and then removed the advertisement template. I think the real discussion here is regarding whether or not we should discount the coverage she is receiving nationally for her victory and by extension coverage of her not-for-profit; the claim about WP:PROMO is dismissed as it was never substantiated. I suspect that we likely wouldn't be proposing deletion if it was a stub about the Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance with a few sources like the ones we've found, but interestingly the arguments for deletion due to lack of notability emerge once large, national-level outlets put them in the spotlight. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree with you. Please note the enduring notability test of WP:NOTNEWS. I may have missed one or two, but all of the sources provided have been produced in the last 24 hours. Also WP:PROMO is always a fear with an unelected candidate, and many of the sections of the page would also appear on her campaign website (issues/endorsements, et cetera) and are not encyclopaedic. Finally, she is not notable for being aligned with the Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance. SportingFlyer talk 21:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- The enduring notability test is actually precisely what I was referring to in my previous post: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" As for WP:PROMO, I request that you find a specific example of where this is problematic, as the advertisement warning template was removed by the same editor that put it there shortly after I requested the specific examples needing attention. I don't think it's a sufficient argument to say that it's an article on a candidate, therefore it's automatic and inherent that WP:PROMO is a fear. We need specific areas to address. The sections that draw information from campaign websites are reinforced with local sources, sources from other states, and national sources. As for your last point, I disagree for two reasons. The first being that she is not simply aligned with it, but is both the founder and CEO of the non-profit organization, which has in fact received reliable, secondary coverage by news sources. If she wasn't also a candidate, this would simply be an article about that, albeit one out of countless short articles not threatened by potential deletion. In the event that there would truly be nothing left if we took out the campaign, then I'd concede that the article is just about that, but that's simply not the case. Per the reasons described in detail, she passes every point of NPOL and GNG, and the article does neither violates NOTNEWS nor PROMO. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- I still disagree. First, this coverage is not yet enduring, therefore it is WP:TOOSOON at best. Second, compare her article to Ashford's or Bacon's. Hers features issues and endorsements, whereas Bacon's features his positions as opposed to issues. Third, there's no way she would achieve independent notability for being the CEO of her company, and there's not enough sourcing there to show that anyways. The source on that one is primary. She passes neither NPOL or GNG, and we'll have to agree to disagree on that. SportingFlyer talk 22:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'm waiting until Friday to !vote, but this should probably redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2018 rather than being deleted. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with this solution. SportingFlyer talk 23:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect I don't see enough for a stand-alone article now. The Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance isn't prominent enough to make her notable based off of that, and the election coverage isn't so unusually prominent to avoid the general rule against candidates for office being notable based off coverage of their campaign. Even if she loses the general election, it's possible that in a few years she will be notable due to future accomplishments. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2018. The election is notable, even if the candidate may not be. -- Enos733 ( talk) 04:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment A redirect is much preferable to deletion as it would send users desiring relevant information about the subject to an article that provides it, though my !vote still currently favors keeping it. In the event that the article is deleted or redirected but later becomes relevant in November if she becomes a congresswoman, I will archive a copy of the article into my userspace so the article would not need to be remade from a blank page. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 13:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2018; no notability/press coverage independent of her campaign for this seat. Mélencron ( talk) 15:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Meets Lasting and GNG per sourcing. The primary win received national attention. We have other articles on people who are most notable for contesting a congressional election (not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, just an observation.) ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 17:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I looked up the subject of the article in Google and I can see there are dozens of articles that include significant coverage about her, including in several national sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] There are many more citations in the article. The article easily passes WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources, and considering she won the nomination for her party, it's very likely she will get significantly more coverage this year. I don't see any benefit to deleting this article. WP:POLITICIAN states "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'." That is definitely the case here. Lonehexagon ( talk) 02:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- My issue with the sources you've presented is that five out of the six of them are all from the same date, with the other from the week before. (Same problem with the articles presented above.) She may very well be notable by November, but merely winning a primary does not make one notable under
WP:BLP1E. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person, with the event in this instance being the election.
SportingFlyer
talk 05:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- According to the guidelines,
WP:BLP1E applies when all three are true: 1.) "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." This doesn't apply because there is more than one event described in the article including her candidacy announcement and her primary win. There is also discussion of her campaign that is published between those events. 2.) "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." That does not apply here as she is now a main candidate. It is likely she will receive even more coverage as a nominated candidate than she did before she won the nomination. 3.) "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Her becoming a candidate is significant (as evidenced by national attention) and her role is substantial as she's the main person in the event. Zero of the three required criteria for
WP:BLP1E applies to this candidate.
Lonehexagon (
talk) 05:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Fair, I misread it as an or. I still don't think lasting notability has been shown.
SportingFlyer
talk 05:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- But you do agree that
WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here? What guideline do you believe indicates that she is not notable?
Lonehexagon (
talk) 05:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- WP:BLP1E does apply here. Our usual standard for evaluating candidates for office is the internationalization of coverage. If a newspaper in Germany provides significant coverage of a candidate from Canada, then we know something special is about the candidate and not the campaign. We have constantly treated the campaign as one event (from speculation about who might run to post election events (see United States presidential election, 2020)). Secondly, unelected candidates are very likely to return and remain low profile individuals after the election (and unless there is something unique about a candidate or their platform, nearly all long term value can be kept in the page about the campaign [see my comment below to Deb]). Everything on this subject's page can be added to United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2018 and nothing would be lost. If the subject wins, of course a new page would be created. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- But you do agree that
WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here? What guideline do you believe indicates that she is not notable?
Lonehexagon (
talk) 05:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Fair, I misread it as an or. I still don't think lasting notability has been shown.
SportingFlyer
talk 05:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- According to the guidelines,
WP:BLP1E applies when all three are true: 1.) "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." This doesn't apply because there is more than one event described in the article including her candidacy announcement and her primary win. There is also discussion of her campaign that is published between those events. 2.) "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." That does not apply here as she is now a main candidate. It is likely she will receive even more coverage as a nominated candidate than she did before she won the nomination. 3.) "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Her becoming a candidate is significant (as evidenced by national attention) and her role is substantial as she's the main person in the event. Zero of the three required criteria for
WP:BLP1E applies to this candidate.
Lonehexagon (
talk) 05:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- My issue with the sources you've presented is that five out of the six of them are all from the same date, with the other from the week before. (Same problem with the articles presented above.) She may very well be notable by November, but merely winning a primary does not make one notable under
WP:BLP1E. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person, with the event in this instance being the election.
SportingFlyer
talk 05:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, but stick a big COI notice at the top. Let the reader beware. Deb ( talk) 17:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Resorting to COI tags is not how Wikipedia works, or should work. It is the same reason we do not move to draft space the pages of deleted candidates (see
WP:POLOUTCOMES). What is appropriate, and a usual outcome, is a redirect to the article "detailing the specific race in question, such as
United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010." In that space, certain biographical details can be added, as well as endorsements, polling, and other elections-related information. The problem with keeping articles about unelected candidates is two-fold. The first is that most candidates are low-profile individuals outside the context of their campaign; the second is that Wikipedia should not be a repository of campaign brochures, or a space for candidates (or their supporters) to push their vision and ideology. --
Enos733 (
talk) 03:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is clearly a COI involved in the editing, but the subject's status does not allow for deletion on the grounds of notability. Deb ( talk) 07:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with Deb. The abundance of secondary sources that put what would otherwise be a local congressional race in the midwest to the national spotlight demonstrates notability; this is all that matters with regard to deletion. However, even if COI was grounds for deletion, the same user that initiated the nomination for deletion and added to the talk page a warning about a potential COI from Ottoshade agreed that the article doesn't actually contain any problematic advertorial content, meaning that this isn't actually a concern. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Resorting to COI tags is not how Wikipedia works, or should work. It is the same reason we do not move to draft space the pages of deleted candidates (see
WP:POLOUTCOMES). What is appropriate, and a usual outcome, is a redirect to the article "detailing the specific race in question, such as
United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010." In that space, certain biographical details can be added, as well as endorsements, polling, and other elections-related information. The problem with keeping articles about unelected candidates is two-fold. The first is that most candidates are low-profile individuals outside the context of their campaign; the second is that Wikipedia should not be a repository of campaign brochures, or a space for candidates (or their supporters) to push their vision and ideology. --
Enos733 (
talk) 03:49, 22 May 2018 (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.