Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Lee (Tennessee politician)

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 Tennessee gubernatorial election, 2018. If he wins, the article can be restored. Until then, almost all coverage of him flows from his candidacy, meaning he does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Lee (Tennessee politician)[edit]

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

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

Political candidate running for office, won a major party nomination but had never held office. Does not meet WP:NPOL. It's a WP: CRYSTAL violation to assume he will win, even as a Republican in Tennessee. Coverage appears to me to be short of WP:GNG and this was created as a standalone article WP:TOOSOON. I would prefer to see this close with a decision to redirect, as I had done when I created it yesterday. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lawrencekhoo: Please read WP:NPOL and WP:CRYSTAL. "Stands a good chance" is meaningless. Upsets happen. Also two people already agreed with "redirect" so there's no WP:SNOWstorm here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that he had an upset victory in a Republican primary and is likely to win are two reasons why I think this article should be kept. Billybob2002 (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, Lee has had significant press coverage by CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Using the logic of assuming someone is going to get elected and has significant press coverage to warrant an article has been used with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Even though she has had more press coverage than Bill Lee, it is still a similar situation. Why is it she warrants an article before being elected and he doesn't? Billybob2002 (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Billybob2002: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. Ocasio-Cortez has had far more and far deeper coverage of her as a person and what her candidacy means nationwide. Lee's coverage has only been in the context of his candidacy in Tennessee. Also, winning a primary election does not establish notability per WP:NPOL. So then it comes down to WP:GNG and he doesn't meet that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a dozen less deserving political figures that have articles. He's the nominee of a major party for a popular southern state, he ran one of the largest companies in middle Tennessee, and his autobiography is a best seller in the spiritual genre. I mean if Jim Bryson (politician) and Dwight Henry (politician) both have articles I see no reason Mr.Lee Can't. (I see this nomination as extremely trivial or nitpicking.) Having an articles isn't a presumption he'll win as still he's a one of the largest business figure in the state alone. Benjamin.P.L(talk) August 4, 2018 23:27:34 (UTC)
@Benhamin.P.L.: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bryson and Henry meet WP:NPOL because they have both served in the Teneessee Legislature. Lee does not meet NPOL. Being "the nominee of a major party for a popular southern state" is not a notability criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: This is so trivial, by your interpretation really a dozen local political figures and or people in the business community don't deserve articles. Such as Francis Guess, Jeffrey Lorberbaum, Forrest Preston, and so on. A redirection seems pointless with very limited information that wont seriously discribe him. You don't need to be patronizing to people that think he does at least fit the Famous for being famous criteria. Benjamin.P.L(talk) 17:11, 5 August 2018 UTC
@Benjamin.P.L: Again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to nominate those three articles I'd never seen before for deletion, nominate them for deletion. This discussion is about Bill Lee and Bill Lee only, and he's not notable as of today. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There would be a case for an article based on his business career and other endeavors alone, leading one of the largest companies in the region. Whether he wins this election or not, he would still be an easily notable figure in business and probably as a political voice in Tennessee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:12e0:1660:1817:541e:ce43:fa48 (talk) 19:41, August 4, 2018‎
    • Sorry, but "strong" means nothing here, and as a businessman etc. he's nothing at all in terms of notability. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being a businessman does not make one notable. Having significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources does. He doesn't have the latter. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the only coverage I've found unrelated to the campaign is this video and this article on his retirement (in a publication with a very low-quality article). The company Lee Company appears to keep a fairly low profile; being the CEO of it won't make him notable. Redirecting to the page on the election until November is standard in this situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect although I'm sure he will be notable in the near future, this seems a bit too soon, per reasons already given. Bneu2013 (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. SportingFlyer talk 12:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect HOWEVER, the revision history should not be deleted. It is almost certain that he will become the next Governor of Tennessee, so when he wins the election in November, the article will be restored. He has received some coverage in the media to potentially pass WP:GNG though the coverage was mostly just election results and upsets. Redditaddict69 (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Redditaddict69: It was "almost certain" that Hillary would win in 2016. Upsets happen. The good thing about a redirect is the revision history is maintained. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect. Winning a primary is not in and of itself grounds for a Wikipedia article, because that still only makes him a candidate and not yet an officeholder — but our notability rules for politicians require a person to hold office, not just run for it, to be considered a notable politician. The campaign coverage that a person receives, further, does not assist in getting them over WP:GNG, because every candidate always gets some campaign coverage — so if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took to distinguish a notable candidate from a non-notable candidate, then every candidate would always pass the test. Per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia does not deal in the realm of election predictions, either — if he hasn't already held a political office that passes WP:NPOL, then his chances of winning one in the future are not a notability claim in and of themselves. "Favoured to win" candidates do sometimes still lose, and underdogs do sometimes win, so we do not create articles about candidates just because they happen to be leading the public opinion polling at some random point during the campaign. And no, being CEO of "one of the largest companies in the region" is not an automatic notability freebie either — even for company CEOs, the notability test is still the depth and breadth and volume of reliable sourcing that can be shown to get them over WP:GNG for being CEOs, and the word "CEO" is not in and of itself a magic bullet that exempts them from having to have the correct depth and breath and volume of reliable sourcing. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but neither the content nor the sourcing here are enough to already get him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because winning a gubernatorial primary for a U.S. state in which a candidate is generally predicted to win the general election is grounds for inclusion. There are plenty of nominees who haven't had their articles deleted; people say he's a businessman etc. but as it currently stands, there are articles about truckers and various other union workers who have secured nominations in gubernatorial races, lost, and received articles on Wikipedia anyway, such as Robert Gray. Nuke (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @NuclearWizard: No, no it's not. "Winning a gubernatorial primary for a U.S. state in which a candidate is generally predicted to win the general election" is not grounds for automatic inclusion per WP:NPOL, and again you're committing a WP:CRYSTAL violation because even if he is favored to win, upsets happen. And Robert Gray, whoeever he is, is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no WP:CRYSTAL violation in claiming that he won the primary, even if that argument is valid for the general election. Even his victory in the primary is notable, just for the fact he won in an upset. Redirecting the Bill Lee page to the TN gubernatorial election page makes no sense, as the TN gubernatorial page is not intended to contain biographies of candidates. It is notable to be a member of the Tennessee state legislature; it stands to reason that, as a person who has won a nomination to a governorship, he is more notable than a person who has merely won some district nomination. It stands to reason that, as being a gubernatorial nominee itself has already garnered significant press coverage with Fox News, CBS, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. that he already satisfies condition #2, even if he is unelected at present. Nuke (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NuclearWizard: Your CRYSTAL violation isn't that he won the primary, it's that you say he's "generally predicted to win". His victory in the primary does not establish notability per WP:NPOL. It does not stand to reason that a gubernatorial nominee, even for a major party, is more notable than a state legislator. They get ongoing coverage for the continuing work they do. This guy had articles written on election night in reference to the election result. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom and per WP:CRYSTAL. A redirect is the usual and appropriate outcome for a candidate for a federal or statewide office when the subject does not meet WP:NPOL or another SNG. I do think, contra Nuke, that the election page about the election can contain short, verifiable biographies about the candidates. Also, all the coverage of the subject is in the context of the election (see WP:BIO1E). --Enos733 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES cover these types of situations. If he indeed wins his race, we can create a page for him then. But there's no hurry, and no reason to change our usual standards in this area for one individual. Marquardtika (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because he won the gubernatorial election. Certainly notable enough, in my opinion. Article cites plenty of good sources as well. I've seen a lot less notable stay. Citybuild122 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • He won a primary election, not a general election. All these !keep comments use the same OTHERSTUFF arguments. At least this one commented on sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Whether or not these comments use OTHERSTUFF, doesn't matter. A deletion request is open for everyone's take. Respect them.Citybuild122 (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, so it matters. The closing admin should take into account the quality of the argument. And he hasn't won the "gubernatorial election". That's in November. He won a primary election. With a plurality. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:22, 7 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bill_Lee_(Tennessee_politician)&oldid=854290164"