This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Apologies all for having recreating this page without recognizing that there had been a recent deletion discussion. I wasn't intentionally trying to override the consensus developed in that discussion. That said, reviewing that discussion I can't help but feel it was the wrong result. This guy has pretty direct coverage in a dozen or so national news outlets. Surely that hits WP:GNG? I realize there are WP:NPOL concerns and possibly WP:BLP1E issues (as this guy seems to be known solely for running against Pelosi), but the level of coverage seems pretty remarkable. It seems extraordinary that this article was created and deleted 3 separate times in 2 years. I'm not sure I've seen that before outside blatant vandalism. Perhaps the frequent recreation should be telling us something?
Anyways, I motion to recreate this page. Again, I don't want to run afoul of past consensus, and I realize this may be a bit too soon to see if consensus has changed. That said, there is an election in November that WP users might be interested in getting information about. Could folks arguing delete in the past discussion explain why the dozen or so articles giving direct and national coverage to the subject in question don't meet WP:GNG? NickCT (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of our core principles, when it comes to politicians, is that voter education about unelected candidates in current elections is not part of our mandate or mission at all. That's what the media is for, but we're not the media — and articles about people who are notable only as unelected candidates for office run an extremely high risk of turning into little more than campaign brochures which violate WP:NOTADVERT.
So candidates are not automatically permanently notable just because they can show some evidence of campaign coverage — every candidate can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took to hand a candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, then no candidate would ever actually fail NPOL at all and NPOL itself would be completely meaningless. And even campaign coverage that has started to nationalize still isn't an instant notability booster — while admittedly that doesn't happen to all candidates the way local campaign coverage does, it does still happen to more candidates than you seem to think.
So to make a candidate a special case who warrants an article over and above other candidates, it still isn't enough to just point out that nationalized coverage has started to exist: even with some nationalized coverage, the article still has to demonstrate a reason why the subject's candidacy would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. The textbook example of this is Christine O'Donnell: it has been ten full years since her candidacy now, and she's genuinely still famous. You still know her name, you still know what the deal was, and you still probably can't name the actual incumbent senator she lost to without looking him up.
So we have an established consensus that in order to qualify for an article without having to win the election first, a candidate has to pass one of two tests: either (a) they already had some other notability claim that would have already gotten them into Wikipedia anyway, such as already being notable in some other field of endeavour or already having held a different NPOL-passing office, or (b) you can write an article which demonstrates a credible reason why even if he loses the election and never accomplishes anything else more notable after that, his candidacy has already made him so famous that people will still be looking for information about it in 2030. Just having a handful of current campaign coverage isn't automatically evidence of that. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: - Guy, I really appreciate your thoughts, but I've had discussions with you before where you've talked about "our core principles" when what you really meant is "my opinion". If you're going to enunciate a rule like that, please cite policy. NickCT (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "my opinion" — in actual fact, my own personal opinions on quite a few things around Wikipedia are significantly different from our established consensus, yet I still respect and defer to consensus even when I disagree with it. Established consensus does not have to be formally written down in an official policy statement to be real — the AFD discussions establish and document the consensus themselves. And while it's true that consensus can change, even a change in consensus still has to be documented by specific AFD or RFC discussions verifiably establishing the new principle — so to demonstrate that consensus has changed away from what's shown in virtually all recent AFD discussions on equivalent topics, it would be necessary for you to point to discussions that clearly establish a different principle than the one evident in virtually all recent AFD discussions on equivalent topics. So no, you've never had any discussion with me in which I misrepresented my own personal opinion as established consensus — I'm very highly capable of knowing and understanding the difference between sitewide consensus and my own personal opinions. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: - And where would you say the "sitewide" consensus is for "voter education about unelected candidates in current elections is not part of our mandate or mission"? NickCT (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Assuming you're right about there being an "unwritten consensus," you should really work on writing it down. If the rules only exist in your head (and the heads of the other AfD regulars, perhaps), they will always seem unfair, no matter how consistently you apply them. Given our goal to be a trusted encyclopedia, that perception of fairness matters. Gaelan💬✏️ 20:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not getting back sooner; I was in quarantine. I am not in favor of re-creating this article at this time. There is very strong consensus that we are not a voter educational tool. We are also a tax-exempt charity, and endorsing or advertising candidates would get our tax-exempt status in jeopardy. I'm 93.5 % within consensus. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few thoughts here, but our consensus is generally articulated at WP:POLOUTCOMES. Beyond what Bearcat said, there are a few practical questions that we must wrestle with. The first is that once notable, an individual is always notable. In practice, this means that all other aspects of an individual's life (sourced properly) can be included on this searchable encyclopedia. I think it was a few years ago, a former state legislator requested that his page be deleted because he was alleged to participate in a harassment incident (if I remember correctly). That legislator did not want that allegation (or reasons for his resignation) included or retained in a public forum. That deletion discussion closed with "keep." For losing candidates, the question is whether they remain "low-profile" or are they a person only notable for one event.
The other challenge is that for many candidates is that there are few people who watch their page. With few people watching, it is easier to add false information or for false information to remain on a page for a longer period of time. Since Wikipedia is a top site people use for information, there could be long-term personal impacts for publishing unsourced material. And to think about this more, would you still consider the person who ran against Congresswoman Pelosi in 2014 (John Dennis) notable? --Enos733 (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the answer to that question is simple, did John Dennis receive extensive coverage in national media of a period of several months? If so, then he is notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Enos733: - So I think WP:POLOUTCOMES was a good cite. Particularly the bit that reads "are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls". That would seem to enunciate why Buttar's page is hard to keep around. That said, I'm really struggling to understand how or why folks are rationalizing ignoring WP:GNG here. Isn't WP:GNG our central tenet? If a candidate meets WP:GNG, how is that not enough?
While I appreciate the "few people watch" argument, that seems like it could apply in a lot of other cases.
Re "John Dennis" - I don't know. Did he have as many articles written about him as Buttar has? NickCT (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A recent AFD resulted in delete. So we should honor that. WP:DRV is available, but after three delete results it is a clear waste of time. A deletion review on this talk page is in the wrong place. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: - Yes DRV is a better place. I just wanted to understand peoples' thoughts. NickCT (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the decision to undelete the Theresa Greenfield article, which I was entirely uninvolved in, I believe that this article should be restored as well for consistent application of policy. As the US general election is happening tomorrow, I do not believe that WP:DRV will be able to reach a decision fast enough to benefit our readers, so I am WP:BOLDly undeleting it right now.
Courtesy ping to @NickCT: who created the current iteration of the article. Feel free to circulate accross other noticeboards. →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I have reverted the restoration of this article. Greenfield is running in one of this election’s toss-up races. She has received significant coverage that satisfies WP:GNG. Other than some novelty mentions Buttar earned as “the socialist running against Pelosi,” he has not received significant coverage. If you take a look at results from 2018, you will notice fhat Buttar not only lost to Pelosi, but placed third behind the Republican candidate. In San Francisco. No, I’m not joking. I don’t think anyone other than the people at Jacobin think this guy has a shot. He doesn’t meet WP:NPOL. After this election, I think that policy (meaning WP:NPOL) needs to be re-addressed. I’ve even been thinking about drafting an essay on the “Greenfield Rule” and it’s broader implications on the application of political candidate notability. But Buttar’s page should be a redirect. KidAdtalk 06:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are several ways to think about the "Greenfield Rule" and we still should wait to see how the dust settles. At minimum, the "Greenfield rule" only suggests that there is a presumption to keep candidates for US Senate in races considered competitive by national media. It may extend to all "major party" nominees for US Senate or Governor (at least during the election). I do not think the rule (at this point) extends to all candidates for US House. --Enos733 (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found minimal discussion in the AN thread that discussed treating Senate candidates differently from the House, non-federal office, etc. Discussion about the Senate specifically seemed to be because the particular case pertained to a Senate race, not due to any particular attribute of the Senate itself. I believe we should seek further discussion to clarify this point. →Σσς. (Sigma) 12:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response!
Buttar's performance in the 2018 election is entirely irrelevant to the election in 2020.
Buttar placed 2nd in 2020 in the primary. As a result, under California law, the only people on the ballot are Pelosi and Buttar. There is no one else. It is a two-person race. Buttar is as legitimate as any other member of the opposition.
WP:NPOL explicitly defers to the GNG in the case of not-yet elected candidates. The Shahid Buttar of right now has received an exceptional amount of media coverage compared to the routine news cycle, which satisfies the GNG.
The reason for this—which also forms a pretty good argument for the 10 year test, IMO—is in the headline of the Intercept article:
“
Nancy Pelosi To Receive First Genuine Left-Wing Challenge In 30 Years
The speaker of the House will face a spirited challenge from activist and attorney Shahid Buttar in the November general election.
In short, they believe that it's relevant that Buttar won the primary, and that he did so by challenging Pelosi from the left, not the right. The Intercept is hardly alone in this sentiment. A cursory Google search yields numerous other reliable sources about him.
“
From the turntable to Congress: A Muslim activist's fight to unseat Nancy Pelosi
Shahid Buttar is running because no other progressive has 'had the political courage to face the institutional behemoth'
This was not at all a comprehensive search, due to time constraints from other real-life obligations; I'm sure that there are many more sources. These sources have all been published months apart, looking at Buttar and his campaign from many other angles as well. Most of them date to after April 2020, the date of the previous AfD. The reasonable notability concerns from earlier this year are clearly obsolete.
This is one of the most important figures in US politics, who has been considered untouchable for 30 years, receiving a credible challenge. California law is designed so that this challenge does not have to be based on usual partisan lines; it is the voters of San Francisco who made Buttar more relevant than the Republican Party in 2020. It is a challenge where Buttar is the only contender left, and the one chosen by the voters to do it.
Buttar passes the ten-year test regardless of the result of the 2020 election as a figure as part of a social movement.
Either Buttar is notable because he won a federal office (and served as an example of the Democratic party's leftward shift into the "AOC era"), or Buttar is notable because he lost (and serves as a prominent case study demonstrating the limits of that shift, even in San Francisco, the mecca of liberal hippies). The fact that his candidacy has reached this point—a general election challenge—is notable, and the sources constantly doting over that fact agree.
The Theresa Greenfield case interpreted our notability guidelines so that an individual outsider electoral candidate can be notable as long as their candidacy meets the GNG, even if that's the only notable they have. The past few months show that Buttar has done the same.
I do not believe it is appropriate to immediately turn this back into a redirect. The original reason for the deletion no longer applies, given the new sources and the Theresa Greenfield decision. A discussion board is a better venue for this kind of conversation, and would attract more people for a more robust and organised discussion. I imagine that this will have to be had eventually, at some point, so we might as well get it over with right now. We can solve two problems in one conversation. As a result - again, considering current events - I'll restore the article with the new sources I found, and list it at AfD to solicit additional opinions.
Already done -ink&fables «talk» 11:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)