Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahid Buttar (4th 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 redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 12 Fundamentally we have a policy that covers this as an extension of BLP1E and that we cover any notable material under the election. That editors are reporting that he has dropped out of the news after the election supports the validity of that argument as an accurate description of wider community norms. In the absence of clear consensus to set the policy aside, the policy based votes are the ones that need to be given full weight. Spartaz Humbug! 16:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Buttar

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

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

Shahid Buttar has received an consistently abnormally high amount of media coverage compared to the routine news cycle, about his campaign for CA-12. Sources have consistently highlighted the fact that Buttar is the first Democrat to run against Pelosi in her 30-year career, challenging her from the left, not the right.

The news coverage about Buttar's campaign is fairly consistent in emphasising this. Additional, more recent sources, from after the previous AfD in April 2020, have reported on Buttar's campaign for this fact. They have also reported on some controversial allegations made against his campaign, also after the previous AfD.

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 thing they have. I have opened this discussion to determine whether Buttar is notable as well, for the same reasons.

Is Shahid Buttar notable, based on more recent media coverage as well as how our notability guidelines have been interpreted to account for not-yet elected candidates running "interesting" (for lack of a better word) political campaigns?

Are there any stipulations that restrict the scope of the Greenfield decision? (e.g. federal office vs. state level or local office)

→Σσς. (Sigma) 12:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, repeating the statements I made in the last AfD, Buttar has clearly received an exceptional level of coverage for multiple different reasons, receiving national coverage over a period of many months, which your average congressional candidate just does not have, meaning that he clearly passes WP:MILL. Examples of this coverage includes [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not every candidate that runs in an election becomes automatically notable for receiving routine election coverage. Delete again per WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 18:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - From previous discussions I've had about this guy, it's clear to me that his "candidacy meets the GNG". I'm personally a deletionist, so I understand the desire not to make pages for anyone who's ever run for political office. That said, there are going to be examples where a non-notable person runs a clearly notable campaign. What do we do in that case? Seems clunky to make a "Candidacy of X" page. Might as well just make a page for the person. NickCT (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just wanted to say that Buttar has lost again. It was not close. (NYT). KidAd talk 05:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge He's not notable apart from the campaign, and he's only notable because he challenged a prominent lawmaker. The article is small enough I don't see any reason why we can't merge and redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in California, since we don't normally keep articles for losing candidates per WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS/the time-honoured idea many losing candidates slink back to private life pretty quickly. The article isn't that long, and we can properly cover him in the context of the election on that page without losing any important information, but I don't think he's notable enough for a standalone article by a wide margin. SportingFlyer T·C 13:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, a couple of the keep !votes above notes (explicitly or implicitly) that the "candidacy meets the GNG" - if that's considered a notable campaign, and it probably would be, an alternative option would be to create a new page on the race between him and Pelosi, and redirect it there until he does something else notable. My specific issue here is that he is not a notable individual at this time but I have no qualms with covering the notable event he was associated with. SportingFlyer T·C 13:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: - re "create a new page on the race" - I think that's fair. But what do we call that page? NickCT (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something akin to "2020 California 12th district election." SportingFlyer T·C 14:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'd support rename to 2020 California 12th district election. That said, this still strikes me as a slightly clunky solution, b/c we'll end up with a page that is nominally about the district election, but is actually about Buttar. NickCT (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, it'd be merged with the information at the page I proposed for the merge and then forked instead of renamed, but there are attribution issues with moving/renaming/et cetera so there be a "more correct" procedure. SportingFlyer T·C 11:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is breaking delete, I'm absolutely fine with delete, I thought this would be more controversial given the pre-election hubbub. SportingFlyer T·C 17:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously modify if Keep I'm an inclusionist, and lean toward keeping pages like this. However, the page is heavily biased toward Buttar, and was very likely set up by one of his supporters. For example, the sexual harassment claims against him represented a substantial impediment to his campaign, yet are addressed as though they were a random uncorroborated blip; similar allegations of misogyny are not given attention. I lean toward including major candidates, and Buttar has won twice, but the article needs to have its bias removed. PickleG13 (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe I've satisfied the criteria for Buttar's notability separate and apart from his runs for office (even though the section I added on "media," with extensive links to his media interviews and op-eds, was deleted). I'm happy to add a section for the boards of directors of nonprofits he's served on. I've also tried to remove the bias, though I'd welcome additional thoughts on the harassment claims. (With respect to the latter, this seems like an important citation: https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1295856245115682816.) Thank you. User:sdi-jr (User talk:sdi-jr) 08:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're suggesting that I was paid to restore Buttar's article, I'm afraid to say that I have never seen a cent for any the hours I've toiled for this website, editing or programming, since I made this account in 2009. This is not by choice, believe me; I offered to the WMF my two hands and the fire of passion multiple times over the years, but they always turned me away! Working for no pay, unfortunately, does not put food on the table, so to me, Wikipedia remains the hobby it always had been. →Σσς. (Sigma) 10:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was not my intent. To be honest, I did not see who had suggested restoring the article and was not directing that at a specific individual. I simply raised it as a possibility because someone had previously noted that the article appeared to be biased in his favor and was likely written by a supporter and his filings show that his campaign paid someone for that purpose. On this latter point I want to be totally clear: I am not speculating as to whether his campaign paid someone to help establish a Wikipedia article for him, I am stating as a matter of fact that one of his campaign's recent FEC filings lists a disbursement with "Wikipedia article" explicitly stated as the purpose for said disbursement and the group that received this payment offers services related to developing and editing a Wikipedia article for their clients (see linked pages in my prior comment). Based on my (relatively limited) understanding of editing etiquette with respect to conflicts of interests, etc. I thought I should mention it given prior comments about the lean of his article's content just so that others are aware and can take it into consideration. I apologize if it seemed as though I was casting aspersions on you or any other individual user because, again, that was not at all my intent. → Kx253 (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to bring attention to the argument I made on the talk page that considers Shahid Buttar's campaign in the same light as Theresa Greenfield. The details are a bit of a mouthful so I'll collapse them. But in summary, here are my findings:
  1. Buttar's performance in the 2018 election is entirely irrelevant to the election in 2020.
  2. Buttar's coverage is not routine election coverage. The point isn't that Buttar won the primary, it's that he did so by challenging Pelosi from the left, not the right.
  3. Buttar passes the ten-year test regardless of the result of the 2020 election as a figure as part of a social movement.
My explanation copied from the talk page
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:
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.
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.
→Σσς. (Sigma) 12:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, here's a question to those who point to Buttar's loss as a justification to delete: should Theresa Greenfield's article be deleted for the same reason? If so, then there's a free opportunity to put the article up for AfD. →Σσς. (Sigma) 10:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Theresa Greenfield ran for the Senate, not the House of Representatives, so she's not a valid WP:WAX analogue to Buttar. I'm not necessarily saying she should have an article either, but the fact that an unsuccessful Senate candidate might have an article is entirely irrelevant to whether an unsuccessful House candidate should have an article or not. (The argument has even been attempted in the past that we should keep articles about unsuccessful city council candidates because we didn't delete the article about Hillary Clinton when she lost the presidency — which is obviously an absurd non-starter of an argument, not least because Hillary Clinton has held other notable offices independently of her failure to win one specific election, but it does demonstrate precisely why WAX arguments don't work.) Each article has to be evaluated on its own merits or lack thereof, and the existence of one does not automatically necessitate the existence of the other. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the many arguments already cited. Candidates running for office who are unsuccessful are not notable, per Wikipedia guidelines. He lost, badly 80%-20%. The argument 'this challenge is unlike any other and is notable' is falt out false.Pelosi did better in the general than in the primary. It wasn't even the closest of Pelosi's races. For context, Pelosi beat in 2016 Preston Picus 80%-19% and in 2018 Lisa Remmer 86%-14%, so Buttar's result isn't particularly noticeable or good. There's no reason he is notable, especially after he lost. Additionally, the fact he paid for a Wikipedia page as alleged above is quite troubling. This is the fourth time we're having this discussion, please stop and accept the deletion.Eccekevin (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am opposed to the creation of 2020 California 12th district election. After the election is concluded and the results came in, we can see it was much ado about nothing. The 'almost upset' didn't even come close to happening and Nancy Pelosi won 80%-20%. Additionally, Buttar wasn't even the best performer against Pelosi, she's had a closer margin in past elecitons. Finally, Buttar dropped completely out of the news cycle. Creating a page (or keeping this one) would be WP:RECENTISM. The challenge was not credible, and hence the candidate was not notable. Eccekevin (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per SportingFlyer above. Losing candidates do not meet WP:NPOL, sustained coverage ended post-election, unlikely to pass WP:10YT. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes WP:GNG given his coverage. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wound not say so. Coverage is usually high for challenger candidates, so we should not fall for WP:RECENTISM. Additionally, coverage has been non-existant since his defeat.Eccekevin (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does not pass WP:GNG. There has been some coverage only during the election (which happens to most candidates), but that coverage has immediately stopped. This would be in violation of WP:RECENTISM.Eccekevin (talk) 23:12, 6 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shahid_Buttar_(4th_nomination)&oldid=993247313"