Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India Walton (2nd 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India Walton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Fails WP:NPOL. At the time of the first nomination it was thought that she would for sure be the next mayor of Buffalo. An upset occurred, and she did not win. She therefore fails WP:NPOL. Her failed campaign does not make her notable, and neither do any of the other activities listed in her bio. Banana Republic (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a democracy, you're not a politician until you win an elected office. All the coverage that she has is about how she tried and failed to get into elected office. Banana Republic (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand the term politician. Being an elected official and being a politician are related but not necessarily overlapping careers. School board members in most places serve as volunteers for a few hours a week. They are elected but cannot be classified as politicians. High profile candidates like Walton usually have political careers outside of elected office in advocacy, media, party organizing etc. These are also fields in which politicians are common.--User:Namiba 14:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has garnered media coverage well in excess of a typical nominee for her political positions and their unexpected success in a declining industrial city. She's also notable for losing to a write-in campaign, something that very rarely happens in a race with this many ballots cast. SS451 (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While politicians are generally subject to a higher standard than WP:GNG due to almost always seeing some level of routine coverage, Walton's shocking upset in the primary clearly elevates the coverage beyond merely "routine". The fact that she ultimately lost in the general election not only does not retroactively remove her notability, but it arguably makes her even more notable, as it is extraordinarily uncommon for the nominee of the dominant party to lose to a write-in candidate. Mlb96 (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As passing WP:GNG for being featured in many stories as a prominent example of a divide within the Democratic Party in 2021. That said, her failure to win election is why WP:CRYSTAL remains an important policy to consider. Several comments in the previous discussion suggested that her winning the Democratic primary was tantamount to election, and as the nominator to the first discussion said precipitously, "there can sill be write-in candidates." Obviously, those statements suggesting the subject would win election in 2021 were incorrect. --Enos733 (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The office was local, but the coverage was national and not what I'd call "routine". WP:NPOL says straight-up that unelected candidates can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline, and that guideline is amply met here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yeah, she fails the SNG but more importantly she passes GNG as her campaign attracted significant attention. The Nation and NYT articles evidence that. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep per WP:NPOL an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. As others have noted here and as I said on the talk page, subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The nomination also misrepresents the first AFD where the closer noted Consensus is that the subject ... has been the subject of fairly significant press coverage; her notability as a political figure with significant press coverage strongly meets WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary, so "changing circumstances" have nothing to do with satisfying the GNG which was the consensus in the previous AFD. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although there is tons of coverage about her, it's all about her surprise primary win and then surprise general election loss, so all that tons of coverage is effectively a single source per WP:109PAPERS. The references cited by Beccaynr as to why Ms. Walton could continue to make an impact are effectively WP:CRYSTAL. Banana Republic (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to 2021 Buffalo mayoral election, per WP:NPOL, WP:BLP1E, and WP:109PAPERS. Reading through the "Keep" votes from the first AfD reads like a textbook example of why Wikipedia is is not supposed to be a crystal ball, which, ironically, is what people are trying to do again in this AfD. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support your Merge/Redirect proposal!! Banana Republic (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow that argument. In this AfD, I see people talking about the coverage she's already gotten, not projecting into the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In their keep !vote, Beccaynr provided the references Why India Walton's candidacy could pave way for left-leaning politics in Buffalo and India Walton Lost, but She Started Something That Could Last Banana Republic (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I listed a variety of sources in my !vote above, and also recently added Buffalo's India Walton won the Democratic primary for mayor. Now she has to defeat incumbent Byron Brown -- again (CNN, Oct. 23, 2021), and ‘It’s a disgrace’: Progressives take aim at Buffalo mayor’s DNC post (Politico, Nov. 8, 2021) to the article, which both discuss broader political impacts related to her and her campaign, and appear to be further examples of sources that support her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. That coverage still demonstrates that she's become a major local political figure. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to meet WP:NPOL as she fits Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It hasn't been determined yet, as to who won the 2021 Buffalo mayoral election, so best not to delete. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm of the view that she's notable enough even with a loss. Radical views, a fairly large city, a political upset and a political comeback from the opponent. --Killuminator (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She still gets coverage after the election, so passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 05:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsuccessful candidate for municipal office is not notable. Most of the big-name sources that cover her are only mentioning her in the broader context of the 2021 election and Democratic primary. So a redirect to 2021 Buffalo mayoral election is feasible if there is no consensus to delete. KidAd • SPEAK 17:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. Even if she still loses the election as expected, she is still notable due to her political positions and what her victory would have meant. If not, then merge with 2021 Buffalo mayoral election.--WuTang94 (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her candidacy got extensive media coverage over several months. Binarybits (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been expanded with information from the October 29, 2021 New Yorker profile, which includes a substantial focus on her biography and career, in addition to analysis of her campaign. Beccaynr (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What matters is whether the figure is notable, not whether they get elected. Once a figure is notable, under the premise that the notability was not mistaken, they don't suddenly lose the required notability. And it seems to me that she clearly qualifies as being a notable figure.TheGEICOgecko (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability has been gained by the nature of this race and the amount of attention it received, and the amount of attention she received. And to piggyback on above comments, she is a politician by nature of running a political campaign for an elected seat of government, regardless of outcome. JesseRafe (talk) 17:06, 19 November 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/India_Walton_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1056141128"