Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Campbell (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 no consensus. I don't think we're doing to come to an agreement of what to do with this one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Campbell (politician)[edit]

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

Tony Campbell (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)
  • Keep. There are two issues here: firstly, as to speedy delete, that would be out of process, because the previous AfD was for the pre-HEY version of the article. Procedurally speaking, the new article should not be speedily deleted, but instead the attempt to remove it again is properly here as a second AfD, to be settled by the community in the customary manner.
Which brings us to the second, most important issue: does the new, improved work meet Wikipedia article policies? The original article AfD was concerned with notability, but since that time many more independent reliable sources discussing the subject have been found and cited in the new article. WP:NPOL does not require that the person be an elected incumbent politician and is not ipso facto determinative of notability for a Wikipedia mainspace article. Notability is established by virtue of having met the WP:N primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in WP:Reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". The citations provided in this new article clearly demonstrate that this is so. Neither WP:GNG nor NPOL require that qualifying coverage be non-local.‎
In other words, the specific guidelines for politicians are not authoritative or definitive for determining notability anyway, only the basic standard WP:PERSON should be used to ultimately determine notability. WP:N states that "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable". The substantial RS citations in the new article establish that the person now has in-depth, substantial coverage from multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources and indeed meets the criteria outlined in WP:PERSON.
Therefore this article's encyclopedic value is evident and useful as a reference for the Wikipedia reader seeking more information than a mere redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2018 alone provides. We thus have here a notable person, a published author and major party candidate for high elective office of national significance, the US Senate. The new article fully complies with all Wikipedia policies and really should be a Snow Keep.  JGHowes  talk 11:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some other candidate-related AfDs that resulted in Delete/Redirect/No Consensus due to only having press coverage related to candidacy. It's common to have one of those results for a candidate that didn't exceed coverage.
  • The Speedy Deletion was redone as an AfD. But my SD was valid as I still could not find anything to suffice for WP:NPOL and many of my experiences with political candidate AfDs with as many as 20 sources were still deleted as it was WP:MILL coverage. Hope this helps. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: @Bkissin: @Papaursa: @SportingFlyer: @Bearcat: @Ceyockey: Hi, all of you believed that this candidate for Senate was not notable in contributed to a previous AfD last month (link is at top of discussion) with the same subject as this article. Would you mind offering insight on this AfD on the same subject? I didn't create the article and I didn't renominate it, but it is worth your opinions once more. Thanks, Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Redditaddict69: You have mischaracterized my contribution to the previous AfD. I STARTED that page from a redirect you had created. I did NOT support deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2018 per the previous deletion discussion. If I remember correctly, there was a possible hit-and-run mentioned in the article previously and it looks like that has been removed. The language is still lacking in many areas of NPOV bordering on PROMO, and the bottom line continues to be that candidate fails NPOL and the current coverage is campaign related. If the Campbell campaign wants to keep this information, they can help pad out the candidates section of the election article. Bkissin (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bkissin, What do you mean, If the Campbell campaign wants to keep this information, they can help pad out the candidates section of the election article.? Surely you're not suggesting COI editing?  JGHowes  talk 20:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He doesn't yet meet WP:NPOL and I don't think he will after the election (according to my crystal ball). I don't believe he meets any other SNG and his coverage is typical for anyone running for a U.S. Senate seat. My participation in AfDs of other non-incumbents running for House and Senate seats this year has led me to believe that a redirect to the article on the election is the usual result. I certainly don't believe that an individual stand-along article is justified at this time. Papaursa (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2018. I searched for independent coverage of his books at last month's AfD, but found none. Certainly had an honourable career as an academic and as an Army chaplain. What would persuade me to change my mind is national coverage of him, noting that several candidates in each party are getting national coverage because pollsters and pundits them within range of upsetting a sitting Rep. or Sen., or winning a sear long held by the other Party. But I am not seeing that, nor am I seeing national coverage of him, with the recent exception of a little national attention to Campbell's criticism of his opponent's support for opening the border to admit the "caravan." MD Sen. Cardin Says US 'Should Try to Help' Migrant Caravan, GOP Opponent Blasts Comments If someone can show WP:SIGCOV of Campbell in the national media, I will reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: yes, I saw that Fox news story and was going to add it eventually, until this SD/AfD took center stage. Now that I find myself in full rescue mode, I've included that along with other edits today to try to address the NPOV concerns voiced here, as well. See this diff. JGHowes  talk 23:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sufficient sources. Has merit. Written in unbiased manner. ~jeremycec —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep May qualify for notability as an academic, plus there are a multitude of sources about him. No need to delete/redirect. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This statement seems very vague. It will help the discussion if the "multitude of sources" (that don't spin off of his candidacy - WP:MILL) can be mentioned and examples of his notability as an academic are given. What notability guideline does he follow that other failed election candidates don't? Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stuff like this I guess. I know I'm not going to change your mind. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That citation, "Tony Campbell, a political science professor at Towson University, discussed Trump's speech with ABC2 In Focus," is to a local Baltimore network affiliate station. And it's pretty routine campaign coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • An issue that may occur here is that the election isn't for another ~10 days, so if this is kept before then and then he loses, what should be done then? A third AfD isn't a good scenario, especially after 2 within the span of under 2 months have already been nominated. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per last month's AfD, and restore redirect per Redditaddict: nothing new under the sun here, and a complete and utter waste of time. SportingFlyer talk 12:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For the record and fwiw, I created this article from scratch on Oct. 17 unaware at the time of the previously deleted article and AfD (because a different filename was chosen). When I processed the OTRS ticket for File:Tony Campbell.jpg and saw the other three candidates at United States Senate election in Maryland, 2018 had linked articles but not him, it seemed to me he should have one too, as a matter of perceived impartiality. Bearing in mind Wikipedia's role as the #1 online encyclopedia, I think we do the reader a disservice by a rigidly deletionist NPOL where major party candidates for high office races such as US Senate and governor are concerned, but that's a VP discussion for another day.  JGHowes  talk 13:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That conversation is currently ongoing here: Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Centralized discussion on the notability of political candidates, which to be fair has become a bit of a train wreck. Also, per WP:OSE, one or arguably two of those other blue-linked articles should also be sent to AfD. SportingFlyer talk 14:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right across the bar, the candidates in the Senate election article who do have standalone articles to link to all have some other claim of notability besides just the fact of being candidates per se, such as having already held another notable office or having preexisting notability in a different career than politics per se. In one or two cases the basis for preexisting notability might be questionable at best, but they all have articles for some other reason independent of their status as candidates. It's not our role to provide "equal time" to every candidate in an election — that's what Ballotpedia is for, while Wikipedia's role is to maintain articles about officeholders, not about every single person who aspires to become one. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: Yes, this is a complete waste of time. I SDed it but User:JGHowes contested it. Should be closed now as a Speedy Delete. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JGHowes: If Wikipedia had an article for every failed candidate who barely even campaigned, WP would be more of a mess than it already is. They'd all be stubs that say "(party) Candidate for (office) in (state)". Guidelines are put in place for a reason. Please don't try and undermine that. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redditaddict69, Oh come now, such a bitey comment as accusing this long-time admin of trying to "undermine"  guidelines is uncalled-for. There's an ongoing community difference of opinion as to the extent to which general notability is applied by NPOL, as SportingFlyer‎ noted above. Indeed, today's Signpost reported:

"As ‎‎the US midterm elections approach, users are debating ‎changes to the notability criteria for candidates for elected office‎"

.
If an article has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" (as this one does), then notability exists. NPOL does not carve out an exception and say, "unless the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article is campaign-related". Quite the opposite, in fact.
Vague innuendos of COI and accusations of malicious intent to those with whom one disagrees are uncalled-for. ‎Your reductio ad absurdum argument about a mass of stubs that would result doesn't wash either.‎ An article having "significant reliable sources" would hardly be a "stub", would it? And, if he loses (as the polls predict), so what? Is there not some encyclopedic value in Wikipedia having that information available for a student two years from now, say, doing research for a term paper on Maryland politics, fr'instance? I respect community consensus and if the outcome of this AfD is "Redirect", then so be it.  JGHowes  talk 21:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JGHowes: Has Campbell exceeded WP:ROUTINE coverage? Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JGHowes: and fine, maybe "users are debating changes to the notability criteria for candidates for elected office" but no policy as of today states that they are notable. Come back and recreate this when that policy exists. As of now, there is no reason WP should have Campbell's article. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 19:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with including that information on the article about the election for the student who's doing research. There's a huge problem, in my mind, with creating articles about failed political campaigns and having that be the entirety of the encyclopedic entry for the person running (WP:BLP1E). I mentioned on the thread I directed you to earlier the vast majority losing U.S. candidates for office in the 70's and 80's don't have articles, which arguably confirms concerns about WP:RECENTISM (I looked into creating one or two articles to see if they would stick, but it wasn't worth it.) As a result our current consensus views the vast majority of campaign coverage as routine for notability reasons. SportingFlyer talk 21:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't aware that the independent candidate Neal Simon had an article created as well. This should probably be up for an AfD as well, just so we can better suss out notability outside of the campaign. Bkissin (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or restore redirect. His basis for notability has not changed at all since the September discussion — as of today, he is still only a candidate in an election he has not won yet — and the volume of referencing has not increased enough to deem his candidacy special (and no, the historic firsts that a person will represent if they win an election they haven't won yet don't make a candidate special — people are notable or non-notable on the basis of what's already true today, not on the basis of what might become true in the future.) And this article has not demonstrated that he has preexisting notability as a writer of books, either — you get a person over that bar by showing that he got media coverage for writing books, not by metareferencing the existence of his books to their buy-it pages on online bookstores. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP Policies relevant to the discussion and/or mentioned above: WP:MILL, WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, WP:ROUTINE, WP:PERSON, WP:N, WP:HEY, WP:OSE. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates to the US Senate. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL as a candidate. --Enos733 (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No one has yet offered a satisfactory explanation as to how a guideline supercedes policy or why an exception to general notability uniquely applies to a politician. If a person is a local DJ, they often have WP articles referencing local news only. Or a middle school that won a blue ribbon award 10 years ago has an article. The point is, we seem to have a higher bar for notability of politicians that exceeds N and GNG. Nor is this being applied evenly; if we're going to be comparing other artic‎les about would-be politicos, how about a remarkably similar case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Stitt (2nd nomination) that was also a 2nd AfD closed by admin Sandstein‎, who kept it as "no consensus", saying Opinion is split between keeping (per GNG because of the news coverage) and delete/redirect (because of the routine nature of election coverage). This reflects a broader disagreemeent among editors about whether articles about major-party candidates for significant offices in two-party systems should be normally kept or not; but we'll not resolve this matter here. Exactly.  JGHowes  talk 23:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An unelected candidate for political office can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." This meets that requirement, and is neutral and well-sourced. And, as stated in the article, if elected, he would be the first African-American Senator from Maryland. DDGator (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every single candidate in every election can always claim to have met that criterion, and thus exempt themselves from having to actually win the election first. So no, that test is not passed by the fact that some campaign coverage happens to exist — it's only satisfied if and when so much more campaign coverage exists than other candidates are also getting that he has a credible claim to being special. But that's not what the campaign coverage here shows — it just shows bog-standard run of the mill "there's an election on, and the local media's job is to cover that", not "this candidate is uniquely more notable than most other candidates". And no, people are not handed a notability freebie just because of what might become true in the future, either: the fact that he'll be his state's first African-American senator if he wins an election he hasn't won yet is not a valid notability claim in and of itself. It doesn't lock him in as already having any permanent historic significance that will permanently remain his even if he loses, because if he doesn't win then the next African American senate candidate after him will be able to repeat the same claim all over again. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DDGator: See WP:Routine for more info. It essentially says WP:Mill coverage may not necessarily make one notable. And the coverage that Campbell has received does not make him notable because ANY Maryland Senate candidate would get the same amount of coverage. And possible being the first African American GOP Senator from Maryland alone does not make him notable. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Election is the day after tomorrow. Unless he pullos off a dramatic upset, i.e., unless he wins, I continue to think delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome of the election is not directly relevant to notability. Most often, a person who obtains office will garner more notability, but the mere fact of office-holding itself does not confer notability, nor does a loss deter from notability. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 00:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL is just a thumbnail guide. WP:N circumscribes and is the actual guideline. Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Sparkie82: @SportingFlyer: WP:MILL and WP:ROUTINE are relevant to the discussion of notability. Yes, WP:N typically overrides NPOL, but routine and run-of-the-mill coverage typically doesn't contribute to WP:N. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MILL is an essay, not a guideline. It's irrelevant. WP:ROUTINE describes routine coverage as "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs...". The 18+ articles that this guy has gotten include full 5W, inverted pyramid, hard-news coverage. That's not the formulaic, daily or weekly coverage contemplated by WP:ROUTINE. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He was not a notable candidate, and we reached consensus on this. He has since lost. If he would have won, he would have been presumptively notable through WP:NPOL. Not sure why it's considered a "thumbnail guide." SportingFlyer talk 06:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly – the coverage on his campaign wasn't out of the ordinary... it was just run of the mill. No notability established. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 09:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All those subordinate guides (including WP:NPOL) are thumbnail because they are "criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations... [or to] initiate a deletion discussion." Those guides are quick and dirty rule-of-thumb initial checks, but WP:N is the controlling guideline. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article currently lists 24 cites. Four of those are mere catalog listings, one is self-sourced and one is FOX. That leaves 18 cites from credible sources including national and regional sources such as NYT, Washington Post, Baltimore Sun and several from radio/TV. The subject has some notability from his academic work and the possibility of the first black GOP senator from Maryland adds to the media interest. Also, the proximity to Washington, D.C. causes additional national coverage. WP:N calls for significant coverage from multiple, independent, reliable sources, which this guy easily meets. (Disclosure: I was invited to participate in this discussion on my talk page.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Sparkie82: As I have told everyone here that has voted to keep, please read WP:ROUTINE. "First black GOP Senator from Maryland" is way too specific, by the way. Fine, first black senator from a specific state is notable. First GOP senator from a specific state is notable. But not first (race) (party) (office) from (state) -- that's just way too many things. The sources in the national coverage describe his candidacy which is WP:MILL coverage! That coverage just happens whenever any random person runs for office, and I can assure you that not all candidates are notable, and neither is Campbell. See WP:Articles for deletion/Jane Raybould, a 2018 election cycle Senate candidate that had her page redirected to the election. She would've been the first Female Democrat to represent Nebraska in the Senate but that didn't make her notable, did it? Justifying his notability due to having a "proximity to Washington, D.C." is absurd. I went to Maryland and saw a rock 20 miles outside of DC but that rock isn't notable (I'm not comparing him to a rock, I am saying that just being near the capital doesn't make anything notable). Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 05:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I just mentioned above, WP:ROUTINE describes routine coverage such as "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs...". All those 18 or so articles about this guy (including NYT, WAPO, BAL-SUN) are full 5W, inverted pyramid, hard-news coverage. That's not the formulaic, daily or weekly coverage described by WP:ROUTINE. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Washington Post and Baltimore Sun are local political coverage which we typically consider routine in the coverage of candidates. The New York Times cite is titled "Maryland Primary Election Results" and is not actually an article. Plus, he lost, so he definitively fails WP:NPOL now. SportingFlyer talk 00:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sparkie82: SportingFlyer is correct here about the NYT article. GNG and N consider passing mentions as insufficient to pass those guidelines. It has been established repeatedly that Campbell is not notable, especially because he lost. He fails WP:NAUTHOR as well so there are no specific notability guidelines here that would allow this article to be kept. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Update as of tonight, he lost the election substantially. The vast majority of the coverage talks about him as a candidate for the race, and the remainder does not grant notability. We can safely restore the initial redirect. SportingFlyer talk 04:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2018 per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC, either. Marquardtika (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The same arguments are being made by the same people, ie., the deletionist view that general notability as it is widely accepted across Wikipedia is subsumed in the case of unelected politicians‎ vs the inclusionist view that as long as reliable sources are amply cited, that suffices. The result in other AfD's is often no consensus, viz, 

WP:Articles for deletion/Linda Weber,  ‎ WP:Articles for deletion/David Pringle (activist) (2nd nomination)‎ WP:Articles for deletion/Peter Jacob‎

In this instance, it should be noted that Campbell's political activism in the African-American community long predated his run for the US Senate this year, getting national attention as far back as a decade ago, as cited in the article.  JGHowes  talk 00:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JGHowes: Wow. All three of your examples were deleted in subsequent AfDs. What was your point with this comment?
WP:Articles for deletion/Linda Weber (2nd nomination)
WP:Articles for deletion/David Pringle (activist) (3rd nomination)
WP:Articles for deletion/Peter Jacob (2nd nomination)
Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 11 November 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/Tony_Campbell_(politician)&oldid=868494208"