Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoff Young

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 delete. Sandstein 19:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Young[edit]

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

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

This article is full of undue weight from unreliable, non-significant, or otherwise non-independent sources. It was redirected, but has since been restored twice by IP addresses that geolocate to Russia. I'm unable to find three good sources that would allow the article to pass WP:GNG, because it certainly does not pass WP:NPOL. ––FormalDude talk 11:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Kentucky. ––FormalDude talk 11:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep mentioned by Newsweek twice and all political new papers and media sources in Kentucky. Wp I dont like is not a valid reason to not allow a congressional democratic candidate a page of Wikipedia. Ussr? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:487F:60E2:0:59:4D56:8001 (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC) — 2A00:1FA0:487F:60E2:0:59:4D56:8001 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Newsweek isn't valid as a source, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Mail_&_Guardian Oaktree b (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one. In order for a mere candidate to get a Wikipedia article, they must either (a) have some other claim of notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway (e.g. Hillary Clinton, Herschel Walker, Cynthia Nixon), or (b) show credible evidence that their candidacy is so much more notable than everybody else's candidacies that even if they lose the election in the fall they would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). Neither of those things is in evidence here at all. Given the editwarring, further, we should delete this first and then recreate a redirect back to the election again, so that there isn't anything available in the edit history for non-administrators to revert over. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is sufficient grounds for him to already have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a close one for me. I think strict enforcement of WP:NPOL is usually good especially on congressional candidates. One or two election runs is not really notable. Where I think Young crosses the line and begins to meet WP:GNG is the number of runs he's done and the time he's spent running for office. Young has spent a decade running for office and there are articles describing him as a perennial candidate [1]. There are some pretty decent articles covering his runs for office [2] and his current run has generated pretty unique coverage since many Kentucky dems are refusing to endorse him [3]. In short I think the coverage of him over a decade of political runs is enough to meet WP:GNG as a perennial candidate and there is maybe an argument he barely meets WP:NPOL as "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Although I do want to note that the article is frequently edited back to a prior version that heavily relies on WP:SPS and I've attempted to cut the WP:SPS and replace the citations with WP:RS multiple times only to have the article reverted back to its old version.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately all the sources you provided are interviews and not independent. Since you recognize the poor content that this article is made up of, I would highly recommend you consider Blow it up and start over as an option. Though I'd want to see independent sources that meet GNG before supporting that option myself. ––FormalDude talk 15:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I think there's a distinction in those articles between citing the journalist's write up (usually in the article before the interview) and the interview itself, but you're definitely right a lot of the articles cited are interviews and given the disruptive edits on the page it probably isn't the best place for that nuanced distinction since other editors really want to cite the interviews themselves.
        However, it is worth noting there are WP:IS here: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Plus 3 Lexington Herald Articles I can't access that I don't think are interviews but could be wrong. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Those first four are interviews, the 5th is WP:NEWSWEEK, but the last one is good. ––FormalDude talk 02:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The first two quote him, they aren't published interviews. It looks like the journalists interviewed him to get quotes, but calling the first two not WP:IS interviews seems a stretch; they appear to be normal articles from the The Courier-Journal. The third is an article with a broadcast clip, not an interview. The fourth source is a radio station, but its a news piece by a journalist and not an interview and doesn't even include an audio component. Concede the WP:NEWSWEEK source is bad. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The third is also an article and the article is an interview, as is the fourth one. The first four are all pieces that are made up substantially of direct quotes from the subject, so they are not independent. ––FormalDude talk 03:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no policy or guideline that excludes interviews carte blanche. There is only an essay WP:INTERVIEW which is fairly nuanced and complicated. Any exclusion of an interview would need to understand why the interview is rejected ie. simply being an interview is not sufficient reason for exclusion. Generally your better off citing policy and guideline, use the essay for 'further explanation'. Or, figure out which policy/guideline should be cited by reading the essay first, to understand why certain types of interview are a problem. Just saying "interviews" is not enough on its own because not all interviews are a problem. There are different types of interview, and depending on what is being cited from the interview it can be a primary and secondary source at the same time. -- GreenC 17:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Considering there's no significant content that isn't from the interviewee in any of these sources, I think it's clear that it's not independent and therefore doesn't count towards notability. I am not saying they can't be used to cite simple facts, just that they can not be used to say the topic is notable. ––FormalDude talk 03:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        There does appear to be secondary source commentary in the Courier-Journal, LEX 18, and WFPL articles for example. But there is still the WP:NPOL aspect. Edit: I agree on the part I am not saying they can't be used to cite simple facts, just that they can not be used to say the topic is notable. that is an important distinction. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC), edited Rauisuchian (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        According to Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." When a publication chooses to interview someone, it is paying attention to them, the essence of notability. WP:NPOL says uelected candidates can still be notable if they meet GNG. -- GreenC 04:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        It also says "Any of the content merely quoting the interviewee should be treated as primary." If you can find secondary coverage from any of these that shows WP:DEPTH, I'd love to see it. ––FormalDude talk 08:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, but are these sources "merely quoting"? That would be a quote with no comment or participation by the journalist ie. "interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts," the essay says. -- GreenC 15:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        No, they're not entirely quotes, but "Any of the content" that is merely quotes must be treated as non-independent. ––FormalDude talk 03:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I think your misinterpreting that paragraph, taking the sentence "Any of the content" out of context with the previous and following sentences in the paragraph. This is what I was saying about interviews, they are complex and nuanced and difficult to understand. The best we have is this essay which is barely understandable. What I think it's trying to say is interviews are often composed of lengthy block quotes which are "merely quoting" dumps of texts, whereas inline quotes "interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts," is not "merely quoting". The word "merely" means "just or only" ie. the quote includes some other secondary material, the journalist chose that quote for a reason. They are not just dumping blocks of text ie. "merely quoting". -- GreenC 15:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete largely per Bearcat and nom - this guy fails WP:NPOL despite his many runs and apparent inability to pick a party. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • i added this discussion to wp:Russia wp: ars and to 2022 congressional race to notify other users all these were reverted against Wikipedia policy by user shell
  • bearcat above says after the election? This man is running for congress under 1 of the 2 parties.
  • Notability had not been met it has been exceeded. pov in editing. wp good faith does not mean being blind to definitive bias
  • This man will be at least a footnote in books for decades to come long after we are forgotten.
  • added comment of deletion discussion to WikiProject:Kentucky and his political opponent Andy barr
  • Comment Strongly leaning delete due to Bearcat's reasoning on notability in politics (not enough sources to make each of these runs notable without ever holding office). The onwiki single purpose account campaign is also not helping matters. One issue about the article is that a lot of the notable things about this guy -- like the party switch -- are just reported in self published sources AFAIK. Nuance is required to pick those self published sources between the secondary ones, but then that can be challenged easily and made biased. (Also, I think maybe the WP:NEWSWEEK policy should be reviewed due to their willingness to obtain translated sources and social media sources [like the Daily Dot which is green and arguably more opinionated], but that is another topic). All in all, will probably edit this to a delete but leaving it open for a bit of more discussion. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The source that makes me pause is the WLEX article. The reporter covers the political positions of the subject and gets the reaction of other elected officials about those positions and the subject. By itself, I don't think this source is enough, but at the same time a case can be made that the volume of coverage becomes sufficient to meet GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notability has not been met. Garnering news coverage only by running for office over and over and then losing over and over? Does not pass the smell test. And does not pass WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable, unelected, regional political candidate; fails WP:POL. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not satisfy political notability, so the question is general notability. The article reads like a campaign brochure, which is primary coverage, and is not about significant coverage by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the subject does indeed fail NPOL, there's enough coverage of him to meet the GNG. While it's unlikely he'll ever be elected, losing over and over doesn't disqualify them from having an article (as with Lord Buckethead). DatGuyTalkContribs 11:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you found sources that the rest of us haven't? Because (as discussed above) there's only one independent reliable source with significant coverage, and that obviously is not enough to meet GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article already contains multiple, including 1 2 3 4. Remember that WP:INTERVIEWS is an essay, not policy, and that just because an article about a person contains quotes by them doesn't mean it isn't independent. DatGuyTalkContribs 12:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't count run-of-the-mill local coverage that is more than 50 percent direct quotations as a sign of notability. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not seeing GNG, based on discussion above and my review, of course. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Bearcat's sentiments. Fails WP:NPOL and there isn't enough in terms of non-run of the mill coverage for a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:43, 8 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geoff_Young&oldid=1110692929"