Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chase Oliver (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I see a consensus to Keep this article with the claim that the individual meets GNG coverage even if they haven't acquired notability through WP:NPOL. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Oliver[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Chase Oliver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete and replace with a redirect either to 2022 United States Senate election in Georgia or 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries.

Article was re-created despite the subject having obtained no new claims to notability since its previous deletion. Article was previously deleted in May 2023.

This is a minor political figure that fails WP:NPOL and WP:NPOL notability criteria. SecretName101 (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Libertarianism, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). SecretName101 (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt: Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Coverage he has got was trivial and/or routine coverage of an election candidate who happened to play a spoiler role to force a run-off but that doesn't transfer notability. Due to prior recreation it should be salted to prevent another re-creation. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not enough has changed yet to justify recreation. So it should have remained a redirect, but recreation would be justified if he won the Libertarian Party nomination for President at their national convention. For that reason I respectfully disagree with the hard-deletion you suggest. Disclosure: I consider myself to be a Libertarian and went to some of their events in Michigan a few years ago. I don't see that as a COI here. Libertyguy (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    obviously, I indeed agree that he is not yet notable enough. Maybe one day, but we do not create articles on spec. “Well he might be notable if such and such future event hypothetically happens…” is not a rationale to retain or create an article in advance. We’ll cross that bridge if we get to that juncture. I also agree a hard delete might not be wise. But there always is the ability even then to request undeletion. SecretName101 (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passing WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO based on articles already within article.. He is a leading candidate for President for the nomination of the third largest political party in the United States so salting is a ridiculous suggestion.--User:Namiba 19:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Namiba "leading candidate" (very little to reenforce that claim) for a third-party nomination many months out from the party's nomination (and at a time where no significant political figures are in the race) is not really notable. There is already a page dedicated to their primaries. The primaries are notable, he is not. SecretName101 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind, Jacob Hornberger (the top finisher in the 2020 primaries) is not notable enough to have his own article. Someone who is supposedly a "leading candidate" in the Libertarian party way before a single vote is cast in the primary, or the nominating convention is held, certainly doesn't garner inherent notability. SecretName101 (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote you from below from 4 minutes earlier: WP:Otherstuff is not a rationale that justifies the creation or retention of an article. SecretName101 (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC) What's the standard here? Double? Djflem (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I pointed out that there is a clear understanding on Wikipedia that inherent notability is not gained by being a leading contender in a libertarian primary. No double standard in that. I was not saying “this similar thing blah blah blah”, but rather pointing that there are past top-tier libertarian candidates still fail to be notable enough, which illustrates that there indeed is not an inherent notability to be gained from being a leading candidate. It’s not just Hornberger, many others who received sizable vote shares in the past have been judged to fall below notability (2008 top-finisher Christine Smith is another prime example). Oliver hasn’t even received a single vote, so has immensely less claim to being a top contender even if there were inherent notability. SecretName101 (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He doesn't pass ANYBIO/POLITICIAN because he's never been elected to anything. And he fails GNG. WP is not a crystal ball and with the history of re-creation it WP:SALT is a valid additional step. Note that salting does not prevent an article being recreated, it simply requires that it not be recreated without a convincing creation request including a draft. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being elected to office is not a prerequisite for having an article on Wikipedia. Jo Jorgensen, for example, has never been elected to office. Being a political activist and candidate is a claim to notability. Are there multiple sources which discuss the subject in an in-depth manner? There are definitely those sources. That's the standard per WP:GNG and that's why it is an obvious keep.--User:Namiba 19:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Being elected to office is not a prerequisite for having an article on Wikipedia." True. I'm not referring to GNG though, I'm referring to WP:SNG, in particular WP:ANYBIO/WP:POLITICIAN. So in addition to failing GNG because the sources are all trivial/routine/insignificant/non-independent coverage of a failed election candidate and his policies, he also specifically fails WP:POLITICIAN, making this a slam dunk delete & salt. Jo Jorgensen has the same issues with her sources being trivial/routine coverage of a failed politician during failed election campaigns, but she's not up for AFD. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GNG supersedes the other mentioned guideline. That he doesn't get a free pass via NPOL has already been established, end of story, period, done. No further discussion citing NPOL is needed. How exactly are the sources non-independent? Interesting a back up for that claim (for staters). Djflem (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has changed since the previous deletion that would grant the subject greater/sufficient notability. SecretName101 (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HEY is an essay, it means nothing. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What means nothing is the absurd opinion that the HEY process isn't relevant in AFDs.Djflem (talk) Djflem (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can write an essay saying "what I say has to be done" and called it WP:MYOPINIONISRIGHT. Doesn't mean anyone has to care or read it or take it into account. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, nobody would care about your essay, whereas HEY addresses Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources,Wikipedia:Deletion process and any of a number of guidelines that influence AfD outcomes in a simple common sense that anyone with the vaguest notion of how Wikipedia works would understand and respect. Djflem (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've got your point, it might be time for you to disengage from this discussion and let it run it's course. This isn't a courtroom, there's no need for such aggressive defence. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know why a third-party candidate with international press attention, who is the first such candidate to qualify to speak at the Iowa State Fair Political Soapbox - one of the most important events of the early Presidential primary season - is under consider for having his Wiki article deleted. The stated purpose of Wikipedia is to act as a compendium of all branches of knowledge, not to decide which candidate is relevant. Tarnellbrown (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Chase Oliver is not an ordinary candidate, and if the criteria for inclusion in WP is “has won an election”, then there are quite a few politically active non-office-holders who should be up for deletion.
Deletion — particularly at this juncture in the current US political climate — simply looks like an attempt to shut down ideas or people from outside the power structure. 73.60.218.98 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@73.60.218.98 Wikpedia is not Ballotpedia. Non-notable subjects do not get articles just by declaring candidacies. SecretName101 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if either (a) they can demonstrate passage of some other notability criterion that would already have gotten them an article independently of the candidacy (e.g. prior established notability in another context, such as Cynthia Nixon), or (b) they can show credible evidence that their candidacy can be seen as such a special case of such uniquely greater significance than everybody else's candidacies that it would pass the ten year test for enduring significance.
    No, the existence of the merely expected run of the mill campaign coverage does not confer an automatic WP:GNG-based exemption from WP:NPOL either, as every candidate in every election can always show enough coverage to take a stab at that argument — meaning that if that were how it worked, then every candidate would always get exempted from NPOL, and NPOL itself would be meaningless. So the test isn't "is his name present in the news cycle today?" — it's "if he loses the election and then never accomplishes another more notable thing again for the rest of his life, so that the candidacy itself represents his peak notability claim for all time, then will people still be looking for information about it in 2033 and 2043 and 2053?", and nothing here demonstrably passes that test. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOL doesn't work that way. NPOL only confers presumed notability (in US terms) for state level or higher elected or appointed officials. That's the only thing that NPOL does. There is no such thing as an 'exemption' for NPOL. One fulfills the criteria or doesn't. Period. End of story. Move on. Totally misconstrued presentation of that guideline and elaborate useless explanation since no one in this AFD is claiming that Oliver is granted that presumed notability, and subsequent free pass to have an article. Djflem (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOL does work exactly the way I said: its job encompasses both who in politics qualifies for an article and who in politics does not qualify for an article. So nothing I said was incorrect at all: we have seen articles which attempted to claim that people had held NPOL-passing offices they had not actually held, so even an NPOL-passing politician still has to have their holding of a role properly verified in reliable sources — and the argument being attempted in this discussion is that the existence of campaign coverage means that this subject doesn't have to be measured against NPOL, and "exemption from NPOL" is just another way of saying that same thing.
    And it's established consensus that the existence of campaign coverage is not sufficient to bypass NPOL in and of itself — every candidate in every election always receives enough campaign coverage to argue that they don't have to satisfy NPOL by virtue of GNG, so if that were how it worked then NPOL itself would be entirely meaningless because nobody would ever have to be measured against it at all anymore. That is not some random standard I made up myself to be ornery — it's the established consensus of thousands of AFD discussions on unelected candidates, the majority of which I didn't even participate in at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Take NOTE of this addition to above cited essay Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, (made without discusion at its talk page), which was written the above author who appears to be referencing themself. Djflem (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is YOU who does not get Wikipedia. Wikiepdia is meant to be a place where anyone in the world is able to find information on a subject. Chase Oliver isn't just "standing as a candidate", Chase is traveling across America, campaigning, and is getting coverage from it. Before that, Chase didn't just stand in as a candidate in the Georgia Senate Race, he caused a run-off which earned him INTERNATIONAL media attention. As far as I can tell, he is plenty deserving of a Wikipedia page so people who are interested in him have a place to easily learn about him. That is the point of Wikipedia, isn't it? To give people a place to learn about stuff that they wanna learn? TheGuardianOfTheWiki (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The runoff was of international note. And there is an article about the election.
    Chase, however, did not obtain international note. SecretName101 (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And if people want to learn about the senate election, Wikipedia has an article on it. It’s notable. Oliver is not, however. Those who wish to learn more can go to ballotpedia or some other site that covers him. SecretName101 (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be extremely aggressively defending this article. Do you have a COI in regards to the candidate or the Libertarian Party? Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think we should suspect a COI. People can get very fierce in arguing their viewpoint in a deletion discussion without a COI. SecretName101 (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ordinarily of course that is the case, I think when a user has made 13 comments on a page with only 8 actual 'votes', and has repeatedly returned to aggressively attack other users viewpoints that simply asking the question "@Djflem do you have any interest in the Libertarian Party or this candidate" is not out of line. If he has not, then so be it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I get Wikipedia perfectly. It isn't our job to have information about "everything" — our job is to retain information about topics that pass our notability criteria, and to not retain information about topics that don't pass our notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The first AfD determined that, although Oliver had received significant coverage in national and international sources, the coverage was mainly for one particular event and thus was a case of WP:BLP1E. Which was a fair assessement, and the resulting redirect was justified. Since that time, he has received additional major media coverage for his campaign in multiple outlets. This coverage would justifiably be considered mere routine reporting for a major party candidate, particularly one having some degree of pre-established notability. For a third-party candidate without clear pre-existing notability, however, the amount of in-depth coverage he has received at this stage in the election cycle is far from typical. Indeed, outside of Cornel West, one would be hard-pressed to find another officially-declared third party presidential candidate who has drawn more coverage at this point. Add to this the fact that much of this coverage stems from him achieving a political "first", and it seems fair to say that it goes beyond the typical run-of-the-mill campaign coverage. At least enough to cross the WP:BASIC threshold. Sal2100 (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    the one event rule isn’t a rule that states “however, connection with a second event completely changes whether someone is notable”. You still need to measure whether they are individually notable, or whether the events with which they are tied are the only things of note. Otherwise, we’d be seeing countless perennial candidates get articles once they launch their second non-significant candidacies.
    contrary to your characterization, there really is not much if any in-depth coverage, it’s all cursory. There are some local/regional curiosity pieces. But these fail to assign genuine note to him or his candidacy. Articles do not treat him or his candidacy as a major factor in the election either.
    he has achieved no “first” that would garner him note. If you are referring to the Iowa state fair speech, that’s a mere fun-fact: a mere one-sentence mention on an article about the state fair soapbox itself would be the maximum coverage justified. SecretName101 (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like the confusion about NPOL, which above attempts to make the make argument that it is an exclusionary SNG (it's not, it's an inclusionary guideline), also often misconstrued and mentioned, Wikipedia:ROUTINE and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill speak to items and events, not persons. And now comes the claim, despite the facts, that "there really is not much if any in-depth coverage, it’s all cursory. There are some local/regional curiosity pieces". Nationwide significant in-depth newspaper articles & an interview in Rolling Stone are not "ordinary coverage" about a campaign/election at all, but about the person and his effect, thus satisfying above mentioned Wikipedia:BASIC.
    • Boehm, Eric (November 18, 2022) "What's Next for Chase Oliver, the Libertarian Who Forced a Runoff in the Georgia Senate Race?", Reason.com.
    • Fausset, Richard (November 9, 2022). "The Libertarian Who Helped Push the Georgia Senate Race Into a Runoff". The New York Times.
    • "LGBTQ Agenda: Gay Libertarian presidential candidate says he's running 'confident, aspirational' campaign". Bay Area Reporter. Retrieved August 23, 2023.
    • Stuart, Tessa (November 12, 2022). "He Won 2 Percent of the Vote – and Could Decide Who Wins a Senate Seat". Rolling Stone. Retrieved November 30, 2022.
    Djflem (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reason.com is a libertarian magazine, of course they would profile a libertarian candidate. The NYT, Reason.com, and Rolling Stone article do not demonstrate any actual notability outside of the election itself. Bay Area Reporter is a curiosity piece that does not have any "meat" to establish notability. And, as I said, articles like the Bay Area Reporter article do not establish him as a major factor in the 2024 election. SecretName101 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A curiosity piece is not significant coverage.
    PWhat is discussed in an article needs to be weighed. Profile pieces that do not actually assign importance within their prose/ do not outline anything of note the subject has actually done are simply not enough to satisfy notability standards. SecretName101 (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are setting the bar for articles on political candidates so far and above what is outlined in WP:GNG that I don't think most elected officials would meet it. It is highly unusual for a candidate in one state to be profiled in national publications, especially as often as Oliver has been.--User:Namiba 19:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The libertarian-leaning publication disqualification and the convoluted "curiosity piece" criteria are defined nowhere in Wikipedia (except above) and not supported by it guidelines. Despite the disingenuous description the full length articles in major national publications that are about and fully feature Oliver are reliable sources that determine that he garners enough attention that goes way beyond ordinary election coverage and satisfy the policy guiding notability. Their dismissal is simply an expression of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Djflem (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are trivial/routine coverage of an election candidate (and a pro-libertarian Party website is not reliable/independent when discussing a Libertarian Party candidate), not "significant" coverage. They might provide some color/fluff to the page of the election, but don't do anything to establish notability for a non-notable individual. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Djflem (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason is a libertarian mouthpiece interviewing a libertarian party candidate. "An independent source is one that has no vested interest in the subject". It's quite obvious that a libertarian party mouthpiece has a vested interest in the success of libertarian candidate, raising both independence and reliability issues. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What proof do you have that Reason.com is directly linked to the Libertarian Party? There is nothing on the page's Wikipedia entry about it. It seems that you're exaggerating without evidence to try to win an argument.--User:Namiba 18:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s small “l” libertarian. SecretName101 (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pure conjecture. Djflem (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curiosity pieces indeed do not satisfy Wikipedia’s notability standards for an obvious reason: the content of the article fails to verify/establish anything that is actually notable about the individual being profiled.
“Joe Shmo has three dogs and four kids. He is a lawyer who has done little of note in that field. He is on the board of his local YMCA, and was elected to the Pleasentview, Illinois school board”. Five articles like that could be published: still would not establish notability for the hypothetical Joe Shmo, because nothing in the profile is of particular note. SecretName101 (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is not a candidate in one state. He is running for president in multiple states. SecretName101 (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus, just a divide between editors arguing that SIGCOV exists so Keep and editors insisting on Deletion. Just a note that I'm uncomfortable disallowing coverage because of a perceived bias as just about any mainstream newspaper and many magazines could be seen to have a perceived bias. That doesn't mean that they are not independent, secondary sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncomfortable about allowing a precedent that routine coverage of an election & it's candidates can be blown up into passing notability for people who are utterly irrelevant outside of their failed election campaigns. Wikipedia would be swamped by hundreds of thousands of junk pages for Perennial candidates. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chase_Oliver_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1179864324"