- Madison Cawthorn (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Ugh. This article was redirected after a contentious debate, however the majority of the commentators voted keep, and in my opinion the reasoning was better than the delete voters, who used an arbitrary standard far higher than GNG. Cawthorn is a young man who recently received ample press coverage after defeating a Trump-backed Republican in the primary election, and if he wins in November will become the youngest congressman. This is part of the ongoing debate about the notability of political candidates. In my view, there is enough coverage to pass GNG, and the AfD should be overturned to Keep or No consensus. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect preserves the information about the subject and can be restored if the subject wins election. A redirect is also a usual and appropriate outcome for unelected candidates. More importantly, neither AfD nor Deletion Review are not the best place to seek a change to WP:NPOL. As an aside, every two years our community is dragged into these discussions about unelected candidates (mostly about US candidates) and ultimately, there is a lot of ink spilled every cycle because of the nature of the first past the post (plus primary elections) US electoral system and because unelected candidates (as a class) are not presumed to be notable. But I will say this, despite the sheer number of AfDs about unelected political candidates, the community generally gets it right. First the campaign itself is notable, and I believe there is lots of room on the campaign page to talk about the election (such as 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina), and second, if a candidate is not elected, there is rarely a desire to resurrect the article (unless the subject runs for another position), showing that the subject is a limited public figure notable for only one event, in this case a campaign. --Enos733 (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (voted redirect in the AFD). --Enos733 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I was involved so won't be formally voting here, but the closer properly weighted policies here. While the keep votes were a majority a lot of them were along the lines of "he'll probably be elected," which I agree with, but that doesn't mean we can host promotional campaign literature. We really need more formal guidance for these sorts of articles. SportingFlyer T·C 23:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that we shouldn't have campaign literature disguised as articles, but I don't think that should preclude having articles on candidates. It should be noted that NPOL states that an article can fail the letter of the law but pass GNG. In my view, he is more notable than most candidate articles, so much so that I think the coverage ensures he should have a page even if he loses in November. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no bar to unelected candidates passing our notability guidelines. However, the community consensus has been that ordinary coverage does not overcome the notability for only one event standard. The candidates that are kept are the exceptions, not the rule, and usually they are because they receive significant international coverage of their campaign or they are an exemplar for a class of candidates and usually noted in feature length articles, featured documentaries, or academic journals about their style of campaign. Others that have been kept (or closed as NC), often involve defeating an incumbent and/or running in the general election unopposed. That said, WP:OSE. While I may agree with you that the subject may be more notable than most, the question often asked is if the candidate does lose (and doesn't clear WP:GNG in the future), will there still be interest in a full encyclopedic biography years from now. --Enos733 (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Overturn to No Consensus - I think that Redirect was the right answer, but the community clearly was scattered, and that is what No Consensus is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Delete" and "redirect" are not mutually contradictory positions that force a no consensus closure. A "deletion" closure does not forestall the recreation of a new redirect from the redlink anytime anybody wants to do so, and a "redirect" closure does not preclude deleting the prior edit history behind the redirect to forestall edit warring — so "redirect" and "delete" aren't in any contradiction with each other. If you've ruled out a "keep" consensus, and are instead counting deletes vs. redirects for the "win", then what you really have is a clear consensus that a standalone article isn't warranted yet — those options aren't incompatible with each other, and in fact can both be used in tandem regardless of which way the discussion was officially closed, so juggling deletes against redirects doesn't force a non-consensus closure. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to keep person clearly meets WP:GNG (and WP:POL). Discussion was close, but numbers and (IMO) strength of argument based on actual policies/guidelines leans toward keep. NC would certainly have been within admin discretion, but I don't see how redirect could be. Also, I really think that experienced editors !voting to delete are worrisome. There is no way at all this doesn't at least end up as a redirect--delete is off the table. if folks want to change WP:POL they should propose that (and list it at WP:CENT). Looking at the recent !votes, it's pretty clear there is no consensous to increase the notability requirements of political candidates to the degree that this type of article wouldn't be allowed to exist. I've offered to do such an RfC in the past, but as I mentioned below, I don't think it's wise for someone who *doesn't* want a change to start and RfC to make such a change. @Bearcat:, maybe you could? Hobit (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Admittedly I took part, but the OP's statement here is flawed:
- majority of the commentators voted keep - AfDs aren't votes, so this is of limited use.
- used an arbitrary standard far higher than GNG - hardly, it's codified in a number of places, which were cited. Passing the GNG doesn't guarantee that someone will have an article by any means. There are plenty of other reasons why an article can be deleted.
- if he wins in November will become the youngest congressman - if. He hasn't won yet. WP:CRYSTAL.
- This is part of the ongoing debate about the notability of political candidates - yes, but political candidates are usually deleted or redirected to the article on the election unless elected (WP:POLOUTCOMES), so this shouldn't be shocking. Hut 8.5 06:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- He clearly meets the requirements of WP:NPOL ("Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."), which is the relevant guideline. I don't think there is a reasonable argument he doesn't meet the GNG. Numeric consensus is also is favor of keeping. That should make for an open-and-shut case. Hobit (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of arguments for deletion appear to be arguing that an entire political race is somehow "one event", which is stretch to say the least. This is as long as a sports season which is certainly not "one event".
- I think the NOTNEWS arguments are mistaken. "For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." To call the sustained coverage of a political race for national office something akin to routine news reporting of celebrities or sports is, IMO, a huge misunderstanding of the impact of those races and elections. YMMV.
- Others refer to the common outcomes, which is, in many ways, a circular argument. In this case, there wasn't consensus, numeric or otherwise, for removing the article. Common outcomes don't dictate what we do, merely inform others what is common.
- I'm not going to argue that every major-party candidate for the US House is notable. I think looking at national vs. local coverage is reasonable. There are many districts where the election is really over after the primaries and the folks who do get the nomination are largely just making vanity runs. But once the coverage goes seriously national or international, with articles solely on the person in places like the NYT and Politico, the person should probably have an article. And I think, based on the !vote here and in similar cases recently, that that is where the broader consensus on Wikipedia sits. Those that disagree should work to change WP:NPOL and see if consensus supports their position. I don't think it does. Hobit (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTNEWS is not an irrelevant argument in the case of an election campaign. As I've often pointed out, every single candidate in every single election everywhere will always receive enough campaign coverage to mount a claim that they passed GNG and were therefore exempted from having to pass NPOL — which would mean that NPOL itself was meaningless, because nobody would ever actually have to pass it anymore if the mere existence of campaign coverage was all they had to show to exempt themselves from it. Which is why the test for making a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not and never has been "does some campaign coverage exist?" — it is "does the campaign coverage demonstrate a credible reason to believe that even if he doesn't win the election in the end, and never accomplishes another thing that would make him any more notable than having been a losing candidate for political office, the campaign itself is somehow still of such unique significance that people will still care about it in 2030 anyway?". Every candidate in every election would always pass the first test, but not every candidate in every election passes the second test — which is why our established consensus that unelected candidates are not all "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles requires our notability bar for candidates to be the second test. And this isn't an "increase" to our notability standards for politicians, either: it's the longstanding existing consensus, not a personal peccadillo of mine. Your position is the one that would represent a change from established practice, which is why yours is the one that would require a proposal and a discussion — my position is simply upholding the way things already are. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to keep This is a case of wikipedia guidelines being misinterpreted to significant detriment of the project. He's not some random candidate. He's won the primary and in all likelihood will take office in January. He's received national, international attention, and his election, thanks to his age and paralysis, is historic. Why do readers such an obvious disservice in deleting his page, in the name of (misinterpreting) guidelines? Concerns that this will open the floodgates to all non-notable candidates is totally unfounded.
Sorry I wasn't aware that if you voted on the original afd you were precluded from doing so again. I'd also add that there's a universe of difference between some random person who announces their candidacy and receives routine coverage solely because they're in the race. There might be a bunch of articles but it's reasonable that the subject wouldn't merit an entry. That is entirely not the case here. Cawthorn has won the primary, a hotly contested primary, besting a candidate endorsed by the President. There shouldn't be any concern that this is precedent setting in flooding wikipedia with pages of non-notable individuals Bangabandhu (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's true that you can't vote in the DRV, I just think it's police to note you participated in the original AfD. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep.
I was involved, so it seems I'm not able to vote, but I wanted to comment that the deleted article was not "host[ing] promotional campaign literature," as implied above. If there was anything "promotional" or biased in the article, please point it out to me, because that wasn't my experience of the article at all. It was a well-sourced, objectively written article that made plain why Cawthorn has already attracted far more attention than the typical winner of a congressional primary, and thus was notable for events that have already happened. I trust that the admin will read through the AfD page to see all the comments there that supported that point of view, so I don't need to re-hash them here. Moncrief (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD participants are very welcome to !vote at the DRV. That's long-established custom and practice.—S Marshall T/C 22:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- With that said, I see these articles about US politicians who've never appeared on a ballot paper and only have subnational coverage as pure, unadulterated systemic bias. If I drafted an article about a Hindu politician who was trying to get nominated as a candidate for the Parliament of India, I'd be told that it's one event, he fails NPOL and none of the subnational Indian sources are reliable anyway. But, you know, a few one-event articles that recycle each other about an American has got to be a keep. We might as well replace the Wikipedia logo with a bald eagle and have done with it...—S Marshall T/C 22:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if they had significant coverage in the Times of India and the two or three of the other five largest papers in India, we'd cover them (picking on Times of India because it's in English). Hobit (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment re "never appeared on ballot paper": This is untrue. Madison Cawthorn did appear on a ballot: He won a Republican primary election, despite Trump's support of the other candidate, which is why he's notable now. I'm not sure if it's a misunderstanding of how US congressional elections work, or what it is, but I keep seeing the false assertion that he didn't win an election. I'm not arguing that all congressional primary winners should get their own articles (though I personally wouldn't AfD those that were well-written and well-sourced), but Cawthorn is notable for the unusual circumstances of his win. It's also far from true to say that he's only received "subnational coverage." The original AfD has links in Keep votes to many national and at least a few international media sources. I could find more, if it would help. Also, "trying to get nominated as a candidate" is not accurate. Because he won the primary, he is now the Republican candidate. (There really isn't a "nomination" one way or the other in these elections.) He is not "trying to get nominated," and I would agree that someone who were in such a position would almost certainly not be notable enough for an article, if that were his or her only claim to fame. Your comment about US bias in Wikipedia is interesting. The hyperbole in it -- namely the comment about the bald eagle -- and the inaccuracies I noted above make me wonder how objectively you can look at this. We all have our biases, of course, so I understand you must have had past frustrations with US-centric articles. Moncrief (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A "ballot paper" here in the UK is the place you mark your vote in a local or national election. Viewed objectively, the amounts of money spent in US election campaigns brings the entire internet to a grinding halt. I, a non-American, am on the receiving end of a constant onslaught of coverage about American politics. To my disgust the BBC's international wing (which is a for-profit enterprise) is reduced to writing articles about these US candidates because the amounts involved are unrefusable. There has to come a time when we start to treat this wall of blather not as reliably-sourced truth from objective fact-checked papers but as paid-for advertorials from an in-universe perspective.
- My view is not because the US has frustrated me in the past, but because I'm looking at DRV from the perspective of someone who's seen a lot of DRVs and isn't American. Right now we're reviewing the decision to keep an article about a US geographical location that seems to be someone's yard, and two US nonentities with no electoral achievements to their name. Compare that with how we treat subjects that aren't to do with the US or Europe. It's just eye-rollingly blatant.—S Marshall T/C 07:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- While we do have more coverage of American topics compared to the rest of the world, the solution is to write more articles about international topics rather than delete American political topics. Cawthorn's district isn't the size of someone's yard, it encompasses a large area with 750,000 people. With regards to the assertion that the close was incorrect, yes, I say it was because a No consensus would have been more fitting. And the BBC's reporting has nothing to do with this, while reliably sourced coverage of Cawthorn should count towards GNG. A profile on him during election season is not a trivial mention, the kind every candidate gets, and it is a slippery slope to assume that if we have an article on him, we have to have one on every candidate for congress. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 13:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good God. I certainly don't agree that it's better to add millions of unencyclopaedic articles about other countries than to consolidate and streamline our articles about the US! The BBC's coverage is clearly the best and most objective source for this article.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what ballot paper is. Cawthorn appeared on ballot paper. In polls open for 11 hours on 23 June 2020, Cawthorn was on the ballot in an election in his congressional district -- on average, such districts have a population of about 710,000 people; North Carolina has a "semi-closed" primary system, meaning that all registered Republicans or previously unaffiliated voters were eligible to vote. (Being a registered Republican literally means ticking a box on a form. It's nothing like the hurdles of party membership in, say, the UK.) He was not selected by his party nor by a "nomination process" nor in any other way more common to "pre-selection" of candidates in parliamentary democracies. I stress all the details because there seems to be a misunderstanding. He has already been in, and won, an election in which a few hundred thousand ordinary citizens were eligible to vote. That in itself doesn't make him notable -- all US congressional candidates are chosen in similar ways -- but the circumstances of his particular win are, we are arguing, notable enough for Cawthorn to have a Wikipedia article. Moncrief (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And I understand that as systemic bias, on the counterexample of India, where Lok Sabha candidates seeking to represent considerably larger populations don't have articles.I'm not saying the outcome should be overturned; by our rules this was the correct result, and hence the lack of words in bold from me. What I'm saying is firstly, that this is a case where the strict application of our rules throws into sharp relief Wikipedia's large and increasing problem with US-centric systemic bias; and secondly, that I deplore how the budgets involved in US politics leads to an overwhelming barrage of coverage, where relatively small accomplishments are highly exaggerated compared to the outcomes common elsewhere in the world.—S Marshall T/C 17:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of articles on Lok Sabha candidates appears to be a function of no one writing them rather than a result of wanting existing articles deleted. Please tell me if I'm wrong. I try not to let my personal beliefs about topics sway my judgments here. I see they you're personally frustrated with elements of the US political system. I don't know that money in politics has much to do with the success of Cawthorn's candidacy specifically. The point is that he won an election despite the party establishment, including the president, not supporting his candidacy. I'd have to look up the amount of money either side spent, but this isn't a case of many millions either way as you may read about in other races. Either way, this seems to be a frustration with a national system that you feel, rather than an argument for or against the notability of this particular person, Cawthorn. Moncrief (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a clutch of India-related DRVs in early March which are worth comparing, if you'd like to look in the archives?—S Marshall T/C 18:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I just had a look at them. That's a shame they were deleted. I'm an inclusionist when articles are helpful, written to our standards, and well sourced, as those seemed to be, so I certainly would have voted to keep those articles. Let 6.1 million (and counting) English-language Wikipedia articles bloom, about topics from every corner of the world and beyond! That's my philosophy (if that's relevant here). Moncrief (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- S Marshall, any proposals to fix this issue? If US candidates can pay for coverage, or otherwise obtain reliable coverage even when their accomplishments were small... well, I'm not sure how we can fix that without an SNG which overrides GNG. De facto we do often scrap such articles for US political candidates anyway, even if they meet GNG, but with inconsistency (eg the Canadian green party leader kept recently) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- When I'm Ruling Tyrant of Wikipedia, there will be consolidated articles about the primaries rather than the individual candidates. Sadly the community has, so far, unaccountably failed to give me that title, and without it, I don't know how to get consensus ever to delete anything about US politics.—S Marshall T/C 23:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We've been trying, but you won't let us get the prerequisites out of the way. —Cryptic 00:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. I can't wield the Mop of Power without passing through the Swamp of Bullshit, and my snorkel's too short for that. It's a tragedy.—S Marshall T/C 08:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern here, as someone who participated in the discussion, is that this DRV hasn't really focused on whether Tone made a proper decision in closing the AfD. We do not typically keep articles on candidates who never reached political office who are only notable for being candidates. A failed candidate for an election in say 2016 with no other notability hook will be easily deleted at AfD. However, when the election is upcoming, these same candidate articles become more difficult to delete for reasons I don't fully understand, typically by voters who see GNG being met with recent news coverage and fail to continue the analysis. Therefore, Tone's conclusion was reasonable - I won't specifically endorse because I participated, but Tone noted on their talk page that a redirect was a "soft deletion" and the page can easily be restored if/once he wins the election. This should be a good outcome for everyone! We can include information about him in the proper page in the encyclopedia while reserving the right not to have an article on him, specifically, yet. We'd be best served by trying to get a specific WP:NOT about candidates up, preferably after the upcoming US elections, since the US seems to produce most of the problematic arguments (for instance, a by-election in Australia received national coverage, but the winning candidate only received an article once they were elected. Everything else happened on the election page.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, the !vote was (pretty strongly) numerically keep. The relevant policy, WP:NPOL supports the notion that a candidate is notable if they meet the GNG. No one argued that they didn't meet the GNG. What we "typically do" is listen to the !votes and the policy/guideline based arguments. NOTNEWS doesn't clearly apply (though there is certainly a rational argument there, it's not open and shut by any means) and BLP1E is a huge stretch for an "event" that spans almost a full year. So yes, I think Tone got it wrong.
- I know you have language you'd prefer. Would you mind proposing it at WP:NPOL on the talk page and linking to it at WP:CENT? As I said, I'd be happy to do it, but I don't think someone opposed to the change should be proposing the change. I'm not sure why people keep arguing this view has consensus but don't start an actual discussion on it. Hobit (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sporting Flyer: When you say "upcoming US elections," I wonder if you realize that this US has been having elections all year: we've had presidential primaries and caucuses since the beginning of the year, and congressional and mayoral primaries as well. The November general election is just the culmination and finale of months of statewide and local elections. Moncrief (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I count 18 for keeping and 12 for deleting/redirecting which isn't necessarily an overwhelming majority, not to mention that afd is not a vote. Also, after subtracting OSE and CRYSTAL arguments (which I consider invalid) and one invalid delete rationale, it ends up at more like 12 for keeping and 11 for deleting/redirecting (and that number is my personal interpretation of what votes should be given weight here, highly subjective), which is well within the realm of a 'keep', 'no consensus' or 'redirect' close based upon which arguments are stronger. Of course (as I voted redirect), I think redirection is the 'correct' outcome, and would support merging some content from the article to the election page, but I realistically think a 'no consensus' close best matches the consensus here (as oxymoronic as that sounds
 ). Neither 'side' presented necessarily invalid arguments and I don't feel that either adequately refuted the other groups point. Deletion review is not a place to re-litigate the AFD, and based upon the arguments advanced there, the community is very scattered and no real consensus was formed. I'm reminded of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janeese Lewis George, a similar case with divided opinion (and less coverage) that was closed as no consensus. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, preferably to keep. There clearly was no consensus for the outcome selected by the closer. There was a clear numerical superiority for the keep proponents. While AFD is not a vote, the closing admin's discretion does not extend to resolving a dispute about the meaning of policy, where both sides make arguments rationally grounded in policy, against the view of a majority of participating members of the community. Here, the predominant keep !voters based their position of the express language of NPOL, which states that candidates "'can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline'". Opposing !voters base their positions on pages which do not carry the force of policy, particularly POLOUTCOMES. In this context, it's worth noting that although the most recent centralized discussion on this point failed to reach an overall consensus, it rejected the exclusionary standard that most of the delete proponents would apply. See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2019#Centralized_discussion_on_the_notability_of_political_candidates, roughly a year-and-a-half ago. With that in mind, the related OSE-discounting of other candidate pages has much of the red herring about it: other candidate articles are not cited as examples of comparative notability, but validly cited as evidence that the claimed consensus has never existed.
- We would better serve our encyclopedic goals, and avoid these timewasting discussions, that with regard to US elections for the Senate, the House, and state governors, major party nominees are presumed notable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why the US specifically? Why must we be so US-centric? SportingFlyer T·C 18:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It has exactly nothing to do with being US-centric; that's just another red herring. There's no way we can write a reasonable one-size-fits-all rule for every election in the world. This rule would be unsuitable for a country which used party list proportional representation to elect its national legislature, where patterns of coverage are far less focused on individual candidates. We have notability (sub)guidelines which are nation-specific, particularly in the sports area. (eg, Australian rules football). For music, we have detailed, nation-by-nation criteria on chart-based notability. Wikipedia standards must, above all, serve the needs of the project, not meet artificial pseudopolitical criteria. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep. While consensus is not a vote, there needs to be a strong policy- or guideline-based reason for going against a solid numerical majority like the one in question here. Neither the closing statement nor the closer's comments on his talk page offer such an explanation. Some of those who supported deletion during the DRV also misinterpreted WP:NPOL. That guideline says certain elected officials are presumed notable; it does not say politicians can only be notable after they are elected, as some who supported deletion argued. I also think the comments about past candidates in similar situations, like AOC, have some persuasive value. Calidum 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPOL only applies in the sense that he is not currently an elected politician. The reason he was redirected wasn't because he failed NPOL, but because he currently fails WP:NOT, and because the closer agreed with it. A better description of exactly why these sorts of articles are redirected to the election page can be found here, specifically Cullen328's comment. Furthermore, there wasn't a "strong numerical majority." SportingFlyer T·C 18:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that that wasn't the consensus of the discussion. It's fine if the closer disagrees with the numeric consensus, but they either need a very strong, open-and-shut argument, or they should just !vote. It's clear there is a disagreement on policy/guidelines. It isn't the closer's job to decide who wins that discussion. Doing otherwise is exactly what a "supervote" is. Hobit (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a supervote. The two arguments are basically that WP:GNG is met and that he's probably going to be elected anyways, and arguments around WP:CRYSTAL/WP:NOT/that there's a better place for that information currently. It's reasonable to conclude that WP:NOT trumps WP:GNG, especially when you remove poorly argued votes. There was nothing unreasonable about the close whatsoever. SportingFlyer T·C 20:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We will have to continue to agree to disagree. The topic meets requirements of the relevant notability guideline. It had numeric consensus. How to apply WP:NOT and WP:BLP1E is less than clear. That is a matter for discussion in the AfD IMO, and I think it's fair to say that deletion/redirection wasn't the consensus of that discussion. Could you or Bearcat or maybe Tone please bring this to discussion at WP:NPOL and list at WP:CENT? I suspect I don't enjoy arguing this any more than you do, and I'd like to see what the broader consensus is. It may well be that your view will hold consensus. I'm actually hopeful that we will instead end up with some notion of local sources not counting much for notability in cases like this. I think that would be a grand compromise. Hobit (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We had this discussion a year or so ago (see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2019#Centralized_discussion_on_the_notability_of_political_candidates). There was no consensus to change from the status quo. So, we are stuck debating the relative notability of candidates on the margins (often those who obtain a flurry of coverage after a primary victory or whom have a bunch of supporters involved in this project). Most of the time, the candidates deleted or redirected are not challenged at deletion review, largely because a redirect is seen as an appropriate outcome and preserves the history of the subject, and/or there is no prejudice on recreation after the election if the candidate is successful. --Enos733 (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]
- OK, but that certainly doesn't preclude articles on candidates, nor set an absurdly high bar for an article. While most candidates may not be notable, some might be. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- On a different note, I just noticed this was rated as a "safe R" by Cook. That's literally a 99.8% correct rating (ok, only after Labor day, but still very very likely [1]), easily meeting WP:CRYSTAL. The Summer Olympics are given as an example of a reasonable thing to assume will happen and in fact the upcoming Olympics are a lot less likely to be held than this seat by Madison Cawthorn. Hobit (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say "easily meeting WP:CRYSTAL," what do you mean? That the article should be kept because he's likely to win the general election? I've always seen WP:CRYSTAL as a reason for deletion rather than inclusion, so I'm surprised. My point throughout is that WP:CRYSTAL (as I understand it) as always exists -- or, I suppose a better way to put it, exists but is irrelevant to Cawthorn's notability -- and thus it doesn't matter whether or not Cawthorn wins this upcoming election. (And of course we can't know if he will, and it's not up to us to try to dope that out.) He is notable enough for the election he's already won. Moncrief (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I was less than clear. I agree with you, but folks were using CRYSTAL as a reason not to have an article in the AfD. CRYSTAL doesn't generally apply if things are "notable and almost certain to take place". So I think this case meets the requirements to get around CRYSTAL. Thanks for asking, I didn't realize how unclear I was until you asked. Hobit (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep (or possibly non-consensus to delete As majority of participants felt that GNG was satified. It's clear there is a disagreement on policy/guidelines & isn't the closer's job to decide who wins that discussion. Djflem (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
