Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cara Spencer

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 2021 St. Louis mayoral election. No objection if someone just takes this to draft but a lot of the keep votes are assertions, plain votes and just not policy based. The consensus isn’t that we keep this page - There isn’t a case made that the person passes GNG independently to the election and unless they win it they are not wikinotable under POLITICIAN. In terms of outcome, its not explicitly overwhelming to put this in draft and with an election in place a redirect to the election page is a longstanding and credible alternative to deletion as anyone searching will go to the page that might have something on the candidates, and, should she win, its incredibly easy to just undo the redirect and get to work. Spartaz Humbug! 23:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Spencer[edit]

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

Cara Spencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • promotional article for non-notable political candidate. This is essentially a campaign advertisement. Routine newspaper notes, no substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is notable. Added more sources to the unfolding story of novel use of approval voting and attempts for recalling of the political candidate due to views. Clearance Wood (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, Every single aldermen in the city of Chicago has a Wikipedia page. None of those and none of the other alderman pages in St. Louis are pending deletion. Aaronjhunter (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The biography of living political figure engaged in active news worthy political race using a novel new democratic process. Clearance Wood (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a textbook WP:BLP1E argument. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not voting yet, but I wanted to let Clearance Wood know that they ought to align their word with a vote of keep as they believe it should be kept. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, and thank you for the note Clearance Wood (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a city alderman/woman isn't especially notable. If she wins the mayoral election, she would be. Perhaps draftify it until then, lots of sourcing here used. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tishaura Jones was a member of the Missouri House of Representatives for four years, which automatically qualifies her for an article per WP:POLITICIAN (never mind the fact that she's been even more prominent since then). I also can't find evidence that her article was ever AFDed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Jones has also been the Treasurer of St. Louis, so it's not like she has a Wikipedia page just because she's running for mayor. In addition, I don't think a new voting method establishes the notability of the candidates. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A viable candidate for mayor of a major city, who has held local office before and has significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. Although an article may function as an advertisement I see no neutrality problems in this one. Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An elected official who has recently advanced to a runoff election for mayor of St. Louis City. There has been active news coverage of the candidate and the election, including national coverage. This article reads no more like an advertisement than any other public official - including her opponent. All copy is properly cited. Neither article should be deleted, as Wikipedia is an important resource for residents to learn about candidates. Jmurry821 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Other members of the board of aldermen have wikipedia pages. An attempt to delete this one a few weeks before a major election seems politically motivated. Lock27 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks alleging ulterior political motives. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per others. Notable and well-covered. Ckoerner (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per criterion two of WP:POLITICIAN. I think it's safe to say that Spencer has received "significant press coverage", and I don't think it's WP:CRYSTAL to say that of course she will receive even more through the mayoral election runoff. However, there are currently only four other articles on people who have only been members of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen and not higher offices as well: Shane Cohn, John Collins-Muhammad, Antonio French, and Lewis E. Reed (the board's current president). I'm a glass half full kind of guy, though, and I see the need for improving coverage of this legislature rather than removing what we have. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to follow this up after some extended debate by echoing another sentiment I've heard: a troubling amount of keep comments are from problematic users, as mentioned by SportingFlyer. This factor should very much be taken into account by the closer and indeed by anyone else who would like to keep/comment/delete from here on out – this discussion remains very close. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to draftify per Bearcat. If she wins the election, we shouldn't lose what we have, and if she doesn't, we probably shouldn't either, just in case. I think any proposed expansion of articles related to the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, which I personally am not opposed to, should be done in class-action format rather than have some articles which are likely kept for political purposes (not casting aspersions, see above). Bearcat's argument is the best I've heard, and the nature of several of these keep votes is very suspect, enough to make me reconsider. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She seems notable enough, and with a page that is well referenced. Stuhunter83 (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how she's notable as a local candidate - all the coverage of her outside of her alderman role is that she's running, local officials are generally non-notable, and running for office alone doesn't make someone notable. I know WP:IAR, but keeping this kind of goes against the rules. I know this will get kept based on all of the votes above, but I still wanted to vote in order to make this easier to re-nominate in the future if she doesn't end up winning. (I'd be fine with a draftify.) SportingFlyer T·C 13:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like the closer to note most of the voters in the discussion are local to St Louis, some of them are directly involved in the page, one voter (Lock27) has only made one edit, and one is a very new user who jumped head-first into AfD. The page was declined at AfC last year for being "essentially a political advertisement," and the user who moved it into mainspace is now blocked for being a sock. There are clearly good faith votes in this discussion, but it also appears as if it's become political due to the nature of the upcoming local election. SportingFlyer T·C 13:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't make accusations of ulterior political motives. Your comments make me feel like my contributions are being unfairly judged, which is not cool. Being involved in editing a page is what we want! :) Being in physical proximity to a subject of an article are neither here nor there when it comes to evaluating to keep or delete. As for the new folks? Maybe talk to them about the rules instead of looking down your nose at them. Drop a note on their talk page. Say hello. They're human, they're trying. We all have to start somewhere and it's better to make a good first impression. Ckoerner (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Serious question, SportingFlyer: What's your ideal outcome? Do you not expect people with an interest in St. Louis or politics to interact with this AfD (or, more broadly, people with an interest in anything to participate in those relevant AfDs)? If you want absolute laymen to decide whether or not this article should be kept or deleted rather than people with an iota of knowledge what they're talking about, we can page some railfans and K-pop stans, I suppose... who will then not chime in to this AfD out of sheer apathy, because of course they won't. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any vested interest in this particular topic apart from maintaining consistency at AfD. We generally don't find political candidates to be notable for several different reasons. City councillors can be notable, but I'm not convinced she is just for being a councillor. Looking through the history this article seems like it was created specifically to promote her mayoral campaign as opposed to having an encyclopaedic article on a notable city councillor, which really is the point of Wikipedia. It also may have been incorrectly moved to mainspace. As I've noted, my goal here really is to note that this AfD is being discussed in context to her as a candidate, that there may be voters here with a direct interest in the topic (which really isn't abnormal for AfDs during a political campaign), that most of the !voters here may be impacted by the campaign somehow, and that this may be eligible for a second AfD in a few years if nothing new happens. Of course, she could win the election and this could all become moot. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to my point that Lock27 only had one edit all-time on Wikipedia, Clearance Wood may be closely related to the subject and has WP:CANVASSed this discussion: Special:Contributions/Clearance_Wood SportingFlyer T·C 13:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears Jmurry821 is a single-purpose account related to Cara Spencer. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a city alderwoman is NOT notable enough to qualify for WP:POLITICIAN. Her election is a novelty and might be notable, but that should be on the article about the election, not about her. SunDawn (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being a city alderwoman can be notable enough per criterion two of WP:POLITICIAN. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only if and when the person can demonstrate a strong reason why they should be seen as significantly more notable than most city councillors. Many have tried to claim that, but few have actually succeeded. Bearcat (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My issue was with the blanket statement "being a city alderwoman is NOT notable enough to qualify for WP:POLITICIAN." That's just not true. I understand it's not universal to the point that every member of a board of aldermen or city council should merit a page, but some do. The question is then whether or not Spencer reaches that threshold. Let's base our decisions, whether for keep or delete, on actual policy here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, FWIW, every member of the New York City Council currently has a page. I doubt every single one of them are notable to an outsized degree, unless they are just by virtue of being in NYC. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment : In my opinion, this article also have lots of WP:PUFFERY as lots of the listed actions are actions of the whole board, or even the actions of the mayor, not her own actions.
So fix it. This shouldn't be a rationale for deleting a page outright. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, without prejudice against returning the article to mainspace if she wins the mayoral election. St. Louis is obviously a city where the mayor would be accepted as notable, but it is not a city where the councillors would all get an automatic notability freebie just for existing as city councillors — as witness the fact that other than Cara Spencer, only three other members of a 28-seat council have Wikipedia articles and even two of those are potential deletion bait for not clearly fulfilling NPOL requirements either. And people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections that they have not yet won, either: people have to win election to an NPOL-passing office, not just run for one, to be notable on NPOL grounds. And no, the fact that some campaign coverage exists does not exempt her from NPOL on the grounds that she passes GNG on the campaign coverage, either: every candidate in every election can always show some campaign coverage, because covering local elections is literally local media's job. So the bar that she would have to clear to be notable on that basis is not "some campaign coverage exists", it is "she has so much more campaign coverage than the norm that she has a credible claim to her candidacy being much, much more special than everybody else's candidacies", and it's not at all obvious that she's cleared that bar. Furthermore, the fact that the city is using a novel voting process does not augment the notability of the individual candidates on the ballot over and above the notability of individual candidates being elected under some other process. So yes, if she wins on April 6 then she'll be notable without question — but merely being a candidate does not already make her notable now, because it is not our role or mandate to be a repository of campaign brochures for as yet unelected political candidates. Bearcat (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete running for mayor does not make one notable. If she is elected than she probably will be notable, but not before.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I agree that we should be expanding access to information of our legislative body and elected officials rather than suppressing the ability to access information. This page has averaged over 300 views per day in the past 30 days.. Speaking of suspicious activity, I find it suspicious that this aldermanic page is nominated for deletion with the insinuation of non-notability; however, pages of other sitting aldermen who are not currently receiving active media coverage and not engaged in a city-wide race within the month - are not nominated for deletion. STLPublicI (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists. Always has, always will – it's not something to base a vote off of. If you think they should also be deleted, be bold and start a WP:AFD there. It doesn't affect the discussion here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep keep arguments above convince me this is a person of note, adequately cited, treasurer of a major city in a major country, candidate for mayor, her opponent (incumbent)is equally valid from cites. If election outcome is imminent, improve article meantimeKaybeesquared (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cara Spencer is not the treasurer. I believe you are confusing her with Tishaura Jones, her (more notable) opponent. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, she isn't the treasurer of the city — her opponent is. But even if she were, that isn't an NPOL-passing office in and of itself, and neither is the fact of being a candidate in a current election — Tishaura Jones has an article because she's also been a state legislator, not because she's treasurer of the city or because she's a current candidate for mayor. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful for commenters to address the notability arguments through the lens of WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG rather than spurious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. We don't yet seem to have reached a consensus on the first prong of that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 10:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify with the view to reinstating if candidate wins the election as she'll automatically be notable and warrant an article then, per Bearcat's argument. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, St. Louis is not a big or important enough city for its councillors to pass WP:NPOL purely through being councillors, and this person does not seem like they have received anything more than the local coverage that all political candidates receive. However, this person could win the election, and this article would be a good basis for that outcome, so it should be draftified. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Notable elected official receiving active news coverage. Jmurry821 (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin This user has already !voted. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:SIGCOV requires “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. Even if there is not consensus that an alderman in the city of St. Louis is notable on position/title alone, the list of citations indicate that this individual has has done more while in office than a typical alderman, many of which do not sponsor any city-wide legislation and only vote on bills presented. There is significant coverage over an extended period of time with over 30 references from 2015, 2016, 2019, 2020, and 2021. The sources are reliable in that they are independent of the subject and come from a variety of established media outlets. Lock27 (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per Bearcat.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2021 (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/Cara_Spencer&oldid=1014648945"