Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie McLeod-Skinner

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. MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie McLeod-Skinner[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)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. This has existed since 2018 as a redirect to our article about a prior election she ran in but did not win, and was then repointed (appropriately) to our article about the current election a few weeks ago, until being spun off into a full article a couple of days ago when she won the primary -- but as always, the actual notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and unelected candidates get Wikipedia articles only if they can show either (a) preexisting notability in another field that would already have gotten them an article anyway (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) a reason why their candidacy should be seen as markedly more special than other people's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (the Christine O'Donnell test.)
But this shows neither of those things, and is referenced to the merely expected volume of run of the mill campaign coverage that every candidate in any election can always show, which is not enough to make her candidacy more special than all the other candidates who didn't get articles just for being candidates per se.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat, but nothing here is already enough to earn her a standalone biographical article five months in advance of election day. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Oregon. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not confident where to stand on this one. I'd say on one end that there is more than run-of-the-mil coverage, and her campaign stands out as she took down a high-profile incumbent in the primary. Don't mistake the following as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm just gonna use a couple of other examples from the last election cycle. Marie Newman's article (which was originally successfully AfD'd) was recreated the day she beat Lipinski ([1]); similarly, Lauren Boebert's article was created the day after she beat Tipton ([2]), so it seems there is some working consensus that defeating an incumbent in a primary election generally is a conference of notability. So I'd lean keep for now, and we could re-visit it in the future. Curbon7 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the points Curbon7 made regarding other candidates who defeated incumbents in the primaries.--Woko Sapien (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Curbon7 makes good points, and I'll add a little. The first source is a LGBTQ paper in the Bay Area, well outside the state of Oregon; for queer candidate to have strong showings in multiple successive election cycles, while running in a very rural and "red" region, is unusual, and it has been covered outside the state. The primary win this year is viewed as an upset, as reflected by coverage (not yet in this bio) in national publications like CNN and the Washington Post. I won't say it was an upset at the level of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez -- clearly it is not at that level. But, it would be well to remember that at that time, the controversy was not about whether AOC was notable after winning the primary; she clearly was. The discussion at that time focused more on whether she should have had a bio prior to the primary. In McCleod-Skinner's case, the fact that her primary victory has earned national media coverage (see here for more) should be more than sufficient to establish notability. It would be best to weave a bit more of it into the Wikipedia bio, but the coverage exists. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has sources that make support for inclusion in Wikipedia. Aside from the standard media coverage. IrishOsita (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So I did a bit more homework on this. McLeod-Skinner served 4-year multiple terms on the Santa Clara, CA, City Council. It is a majority-minority town that had over 100,000 population at the time, less than 1% gay population. She pointedly refused PAC $ and was outspent 10-1 or so this year. Schrader was endorsed by both Biden and Pelosi. She shouldn't get an article, say as if she, say, won a race for the (fictional) East Bumford, western Nebraska mayor's position, in a population 32 town where her predecessor only took office because all his relatives voted for him, but because she can apparently walk on political water. Activist (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do think that a candidate is notable when the candidate defeated an incumbent in a party primary for a national office and received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected.--Enos733 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NPOL, we don't typically keep articles on candidates until they win a general election. If she wins the November election, she'll be notable then. Marquardtika (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If this article stays, what happens if she loses the general election? Then, her notability will be based on having lost three state/federal elections. In the meantime, should Wikipedia approve an article on her opponent, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who has been mayor of a medium size city and won a primary the same as McLeod-Skinner? Currently, LR-D's Wiki-connection is via a Redirect to the 2022 House election article; the same way McLeod-Skinner was connected before this personal article was uploaded. I think we should follow the rules; otherwise, we’re on a slippery slope that could look like endorsing one candidate over another.--Orygun (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is always based on the subject receiving significant coverage from independent sources. I suggest that defeating an incumbent in a primary election for a national office is not routine, and the coverage of McLeod-Skinner following the primary win is not routine either. Multiple articles described this race in the lens of centrist versus progressive Democrat (like this article in The Nation). It is this national framing, coupled with the defeat of an incumbent, that differentiates the subject from other candidates (that is the campaign coverage is a) nationalized and b) not routine). To the other comments, I would suggest a) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and b) Wikipedia is not static. - Enos733 (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orygun You make a compelling point, but I disagree with your conclusion. The situation you describe, where Wikipedia has an article about one candidate but not another, is something that happens all the time. In nearly every case where a challenger is taking on an incumbent for a significant office, we will have a bio of the incumbent, but not for the challenger. From an electoral politics point of view, I tend to agree with you, this isn't ideal, and potentially contributes to bias toward the incumbent. We also have many candidates from third parties, in many races, who never get Wikipedia bios, which potentially contributes to bias toward "big party" candidates. As you suggest, none of this is ideal. But if Wikipedia is going to base its rules on notability, rather than some constructed notion of "fairness," this is how it will often be, and it therefore shouldn't be used as a reason to keep or delete any specific article. Should Chavez-DeRemer have a Wikipedia bio? I'm not sure, I haven't delved into her background. But if/when we do, we should assess that decision by the same process as we apply to McCleod-Skinner: we should assess her coverage based on WP:GNG. If she has sufficient coverage over a sustained period of time, perhaps we will have a bio of her prior to the election. But we shouldn't base that decision (or this one) on a constructed notion of fairness. That kind of fairness is beyond what Wikipedia is equipped to impose. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NPOL as a "Major local political [figure] who [has] received significant press coverage..." from several local and national outlets, the page should be kept for now and should be presumed to meet the notability requirements. Oregonian123 (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lean redirect to 2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Oregon#District_5. Still not an elected political figure. If this were in draftspace, I would say that we should hold off on this until November. Candidates who want free advertising can go to Ballotpedia. Bkissin (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN, and I don't see enough beyond routine election coverage to pass WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable [3] Andrevan@ 01:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. NPOL is a distraction, leading editors to believe that the article should be kept or deleted based on whether the article subject meets the notability guidelines for a politician. There has been an extensive amount of media coverage of the subject which alone justifies the existence of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG. Holding office is sufficient for notability, but not necessary. ITBF (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Santa Clara is a city of over 100,000 people, and I'd say 8 years on the Santa Clara City Council is notable. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2022 (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.