Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Tulp (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Coverage based solely on a person's candidacy for a non-national office is typically discounted at AfD (see WP:POLOUTCOMES for more info), and most commenters have followed that model here. If this individual is notable for other work, the sources for that have not been shown in the article or this discussion. RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Tulp[edit]

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

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

The only change since the previous deletion is that Tulp is running for Congress. However he currently fails WP:NPOL. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it's substantially different enough to warrant a second AFD but yeah, there's still no coverage. He's not notable. Praxidicae (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Biographical article for a non notable individual who falls short of WP:GNG standard.Celestina007 (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and he isn't really notable outside his campaign. Minor COI disclosure but Tulp appears to have been two years ahead of me at Fordham and I kind of remember his face from College Democrat/College Republican debates. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retain He is on the ballot in Mississippi for a major political position in a major political party. He is notable, particularly in the region and to the intended audience, and should be able to retain his page, at least through the Primary election cycle. Matevian (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)--Matevian[reply]

That falls way short of WP:NPOL as thousands of people qualify to be on congressional primary ballots each election cycle. Wikipedia is not a voter information service. GPL93 (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one — in other words, he has to win the election before he "automatically" qualifies for an article, and to qualify for inclusion any earlier than November 2020 he would have to demonstrate preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway. Simply running as a candidate is not, in and of itself, enough. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The only news regarding him entering politics is running for a major political position in a major political party. Since election is several months away & he hasn't won yet, it fails WP:NPOL. On the other hand, the article has a lot of reliable sources about him. It should do away with a couple of primary sources. Per Matevian, article is still good enough to pass WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 04:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 20 footnotes here, six are duplicated repetitions of the same source, so there are really just thirteen references in total. But six of those 13 are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, such as his campaign website and staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers and newspaper articles where he's the author and not the subject; two more are blogs, and two more are glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him. Which means ten of the thirteen footnotes are doing nothing at all to demonstrate notability — and since every candidate in every election can always show two or three hits of "person declares candidacy" coverage in their local media when they launch their campaigns, the three remaining hits of campaign coverage are not in and of themselves enough coverage to hand the candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL. The notability test for unelected candidates is not the ability to offer technical verification that he exists; it is the ability to offer nationalizing coverage that makes his candidacy much more special than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to marginally meet notability guidelines with his academic and radio careers, in addition to being the major party candidate for a seat. There is no reason a candidate for office SHOULDN'T have an article, and we shouldn't hold them to a higher standard than typical articles. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 04:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of reasons why unelected candidates for office shouldn't have Wikipedia articles, and they aren't being held to a higher standard than other topics — there are a lot of classes of topic (school board trustees, small town municipal councillors, local bands, local writers, high school and junior league athletes, etc.) who could show a couple of hits of purely local hometown coverage without actually accomplishing anything that would clear our notability criteria for their occupation. Such people are not handed a "GNG"-based exemption from having to clear a notability standard just because a small handful of local media coverage happens to exist in purely local interest contexts. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anything that gets to two": it tests for depth and range and context, not just number. The less "inherently notable" a person's notability claim is, the more "well above and beyond the ordinary" their sourcing has to get before it translates into a GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidates for public office do not meet WP:NPOL by virtue of being a candidate. We regularly say the campaign (in this case 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Mississippi) is notable even if the candidates are not. We have also recognized there of some candidates like Christine O'Donnell who receive reliable sourced and independent coverage (often international) that become notable through their campaigns, that do end up passing WP:GNG.--Enos733 (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to pass WP:GNG with the multiple reliable sources in the article. His academic and radio career seem to make him notable, and his congressional run, which alone isn't notable, does contribute to his notability.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero sources here covering him in the context of his academic or radio careers, and I've already explained above why the vast majority of the sources present here aren't notability-supporting references. All we've got for GNG-worthy sourcing is three pieces of routine campaign coverage in the local media — which is not enough coverage to make a candidate more special than other candidates, because every candidate in every election everywhere can always show three pieces of purely local campaign coverage. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have always deleted articles about DJs and talk show hosts, unless they are "drive time" are otherwise well documented in a serious of reliable sources. We always delete articles about candidates for Congress. Everybody knows this in 2020. Redirect if needed. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2020 (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.