Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Ortiz Jones (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 June 17.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2018#District 23. While she has received plenty of coverage, it is only in the context of her electoral run, and these publications would not have taken an interest in her life and bio if she weren't a candidate for office. Currently she does not have sufficient notability independent of the election. A brief blurb about her can be written in the election article, and of course her article can be restored if she is elected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Ortiz Jones[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:NPOL. Unelected congressional candidates are generally not considered notable. The coverage surrounding her is about her campaign, and she doesn't otherwise appear to meet our notability thresholds. We typically create articles for members of the U.S. House once they win a general election, and not before. Should be redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2018 as per usual. Marquardtika (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2018. There is a lot of coverage for this individual, since she is the nominee a competitive US House race this year. But all of the notability is derived from this one event, the election. If she wins the election, then it will be easy to restore the article from the page history and continue work on it. If she loses the election, then she will have no notability outside of the election and there will be no need to keep the article for years to come. -LtNOWIS (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To quote a common theme expressed at previous AfD, This person easily passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." She is included under GNG, not NPOL. As also disclosed in previous AfD, I created the article because I had seen some of the "substantial" coverage of her and wanted more information. Winning the runoff makes her more notable and more likely to attract coverage, not less so. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per HouseOfChange reasoning. Blorg (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, HouseOfChange (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep at this time. If she loses, not notable for stand alone article, but if she wins, would be enough to pass. Winning the runoff is not enough, but why delete and redirect at this time. Instead, in this case, should wait and see. Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how notability for politicians works. We don't keep candidates until the election and then delete their articles if they lose, we wait until the election is over, and only then do we start creating articles about the winners. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2018. This individual has done nothing notable other than their candidacy for congress, the information here is more properly placed in the article about the election than as a stand alone article. If she wins the election, or makes other notable runs for offices in the future she would then be sufficient material to warrant her own article.XavierGreen (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2018 per others above. --Enos733 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for US congress are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gina Ortiz Jones meets the WP:GNG guidelines as although she is an un-elected candidate, she has received considerable press coverage in news outlets ranging from local to national. Should she not be elected, this conversation could be revisited, however at the current time I believe the article should remain, but with some additional work to bring additional sources into the article as needed. JaxisMaximus (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the election. Candidates do not get into Wikipedia just for being candidates — she has to win the election and thereby hold the office, not just run in the election, to be considered notable as a politician, and otherwise is notable only if she already had enough preexisting notability for other reasons to qualify for an article independently of her candidacy. And the existence of some campaign-related coverage does not give a candidate a free GNG pass that exempts them from having to pass NPOL, either — the volume and depth and range of coverage shown here can always be shown by every candidate in every election everywhere, so if this were all it took then NPOL would never be applicable at all, because no candidate for any office anywhere would ever fail to be able to show as much campaign coverage as this. The article can absolutely be recreated in November if she wins the seat, because her notability equation will have changed to a straight NPOL #1 pass that guarantees a Wikipedia article — but nothing here is a good reason, or good enough sourcing, to already get her a Wikipedia article today. The notability test for Wikipedia articles is not temporary newsiness — it is will people still be looking for this article ten years from now. Officeholders pass that test, but candidates do not. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The personal story of Ortiz Jones has been covered at length in both Teen Vogue and the Harvard Political Review--this is not actually typical of every candidate in every election. She has been interviewed by the NYT and quoted by Time Magazine, among many other news sources. She passes GNG by a country mile. Yes, she fails NPOL, WP:SPORTSPERSON, WP:NARTIST, and many other criteria. The point is she qualifies under GNG. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If she passes GNG on the sources shown here, then every candidate for any office anywhere automatically passes GNG too — the volume of sources shown here is not wildly out of scope with the number of sources that other candidates could also show. But our notability standards for politicians are intentionally designed to neckpunch "candidates are notable because media coverage of the campaign exists" to death, because Wikipedia is not and does not want to become a free public relations repository of campaign brochures. Our notability rules are not based on temporary newsiness, but on whether a person passes the ten year test for enduring significance — for any article about any person, regardless of occupation, the base test that always needs to come true before starting an article becomes justified is always "there is a credible reason to believe that readers will still be looking for an article about this person ten years from now". I have yet to see how Gina Ortiz Jones passes that test as of today — she'll pass it if she wins the election, certainly, but as a candidate the only test she already passes today is "do this notability claim and this sourcing just make her a WP:BLP1E?" Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've improved her article with more citations. The subject appears to have received enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG even if you don't include typical campaign coverage. She received plenty of local and national discussion that included significant discussion about her uniqueness as a candidate before she even won the nomination.[1][2][3] If you look her up in Google News, you can see she's receiving far more coverage than is typical for a candidate.[4] For example, there are many detailed profiles about her and how her candidacy is unique because if she won she would be the be the first female, first openly gay, first Iraq veteran, and first Flipino-American to take the seat if she wins.[5][6][7][8] Lonehexagon (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those "firsts" are notable right now, because she hasn't won yet. Thats all speculation.XavierGreen (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates are not notable just because of the historic firsts that they will come to represent if they win an election they haven't won yet — especially if their historicity is limited to their own district. Even if she wins the seat, she will not be the first female, first openly gay, first Iraq veteran or first Filipino-American member of Congress period — she'll only be the first of any of those things to represent her own individual district as opposed to other districts, which is not historically important enough to make her candidacy notable in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't look like it is deletable at this moment. --Komitsuki (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Media coverage is extensive as per WP:GNG, including coverage by a British newspaper meaning she is getting some international attention, unlike other candidates. Million_Moments (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the election page or delete. WP:GNG only creates a presumption an article is suitable. Unelected candidates do not have a notability guarantee. I agree this article has better sourcing than most articles for most candidates, but all of the articles talk about how she could make history - this doesn't pass the ten-year test per WP:RECENT. Therefore, I think it's best to redirect. If something else notable happens during the election, or she wins, we can reinstate it easily. Also, there are several keep votes above which suggest we should revisit the article if she loses - these should be struck as failures of WP:TOOSOON, as notability is not temporary. SportingFlyer talk 21:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems excessive to strike votes for failing WP:TOOSOON, as that page explicitly says, "This page is an essay on notability. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." Lonehexagon (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, I've used WP:TOOSOON here to demonstrate she may be notable shortly. Importantly, the votes also fail WP:NTEMP, which is a guideline. SportingFlyer talk 01:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how any votes fail WP:NTEMP, which states, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." How does that contradict the desire to wait and see for a topic that certainly seems to be notable now, and easily passes WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources? If anything, that's evidence this article should stay because it does pass GNG already and notability is not temporary. Lonehexagon (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What "notability is not temporary" means is that we do not keep articles pending the outcome of a future notability test that hasn't already been passed yet as of today. We do not hang onto premature articles about political candidates until election day and then delete the ones who lost; we wait until election day before we start new articles about the candidates who won. We do not keep articles about TV pilots that have been announced as entering the production pipeline but have not actually been upfronted by a network yet and then delete them only if the network turns them down; we wait until the upfronts before we start new articles about the pilots that did get picked up and scheduled. And on and so forth: we do not start premature articles about people or things who might pass a notability criterion in the future that they have not already passed yet as of today — we keep or delete articles based on what's already true today, and then permit recreation in the future if things change. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple votes which say at this moment or should she not be elected, this conversation can be revisited. These, to me, indicate she's only notable since she's a candidate, and her candidacy will not be notable if she does not not win. The desire to "wait and see" typically means we're not ready for an article, whether it's a sports player who hasn't quite made the first team, or a candidate who hasn't quite become a politician yet, and suggests a draftify or redirect over a keep. SportingFlyer talk 17:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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". A person can be notable just for being a candidate if they fulfill the base requirement of WP:GNG. That is the case here. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted. She hasn't won or lost yet, but even with the amount of coverage so far, assuming she loses, there's not enough here to keep her from undergoing another deletion review. A redirect is the best option. Keep in mind WP:GNG only creates a presumption. SportingFlyer talk 05:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The official guidelines are extremely specific about unelected politicians ("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'"). Your example from an unofficial essay, "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted" does not even refer to candidates who are campaigning. It is talking specifically about losing candidates, which this person is not. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the official guidelines only create a presumption, and when the sources are only about the candidacy, and the candidacy isn't particularly notable, it's ripe for a redirect. The fact she would likely have her article deleted if she lost is a perfect example of the notability issues we have with unelected candidates. SportingFlyer talk 17:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What NPOL says and doesn't say: "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'." WP:NPOL requires significant coverage independent of the subject. It does NOT require that publications taking an interest in the subject should not mention, as a primary hook, that the person is running for elective office. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be very specific - and typically, politicians who would pass WP:NPOL would have significant coverage by independent journalists. Per your comment, we'd pretty much keep every candidate or even local official who gets written about in the paper. However, per WP:POLOUTCOMES, which, yes, is not binding, candidates that run for office do not get the same presumption someone else who might clearly pass WP:GNG would, as candidates who aren't otherwise notable present problems of recentism, not being a newspaper, and promotional concerns. SportingFlyer talk 17:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you're trying to argue against very specific official guidelines on unelected politicians ("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'") by citing an unofficial essay. WP:POLOUTCOMES also specifically says, "This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Lonehexagon (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is an adequately sourced entry for GNG; I also think it’s done well enough to be useful to readers (and I’ve done a bit to try to make it better though the sources provide more room for improvement); and I am perplexed by the rationale for a second deletion nomination when it closed as no consensus in the previous month and since then reliable secondary source coverage has only increased. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a candidate who is getting enough national media coverage to pass WP:GNG, here's a profile in the Daily Beast: Woman, Lesbian, Filipina-American, Iraq Veteran: How Gina Ortiz Jones Could Make Texas Political History].E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2018 (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.