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 United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018. A Train^talk 17:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Campa-Najjar[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unelected political candidates do not inherently pass WP:NPOL and, per WP:POLOUTCOMES, must be able to achieve widespread coverage independent and unrelated to their campaign or candidacy. Currently, the only WP:RS in this article for Campa-Najjar that is not within the context of his candidacy is a brief mention in an LA Times article. A BEFORE search fails to find much else. Chetsford (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This amounts to basically a campaign brouchere. Wikipedia is not the place for candidates to public office to advance their political campaigns.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I must say, this is closer than a lot of the ones we've kept recently as he's been profiled in Al Jazeera. That being said, he doesn't pass WP:GNG when he's not a candidate, and the coverage about him as a candidate doesn't pass the ten year test. Best to redirect in line with what we typically do with unelected candidates. SportingFlyer talk 21:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you like it redirected? Chetsford (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018 perhaps? SportingFlyer talk 17:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I find this a convincing alternative. Chetsford (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This candidate is receiving far more coverage than a typical candidate. Even if you ignore the "standard" local campaign news like announcements to run, his candidacy still satisfies WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources. There are several examples of non-local and even international coverage of his campaign.[1][2][3][4] There's also a sourced article about him in The Atlantic that doesn't have anything to do with his campaign.[5] Lonehexagon (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic source is not about him — it's a Q&A interview in which he's the speaker, but not the thing being spoken about, so he isn't its subject for the purposes of its GNG-worthiness. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s about him in a reliable source but not written by him. I don’t see how it’s not a sign of notability that a national newspaper would be covering him in that way. What guideline states that it does not indicate notability? Lonehexagon (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A source quoting him speaking about something else is not the same thing as a source being about him. He has to be the subject of a source, not merely quoted speaking on some other subject, for that source to assist in establishing notability. Bearcat (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirectto United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018 - a usual and an appropriate outcome for candidates for Congress. --Enos733 (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The fact that one extralocal media outlet grants one piece of coverage to a local candidate is not, in and of itself, an instant pass of the "more notable than most other candidates test" — over the course of the election campaign, at least half of all candidates nationwide will be able to show at least one such piece, because "digging into individual races to see if they can tell us anything important about the national mood" is a thing national media do too. If the nationalized coverage were exploding to Christine O'Donnell or Jon Ossoff proportions, then there'd be a case that he was more notable than most other candidates — but a candidate does not instantly pass the notability bar for candidates the moment you can show one source that exceeds local and WP:ROUTINE. And of the 15 sources here, seven of them (effectively 50 per cent, since 0.5 of a source is impossible) are primary sources that do not assist notability at all, such as his own campaign website, his own Twitter feed, his own LinkedIn and pieces of his own writing about other things. Of the eight that are real media coverage, several of them just namecheck his existence within coverage of other things, so they don't help get him over GNG, as he isn't their subject, and another is the routine "candidate positions on the issues" questionnaire that media outlets have to send to every candidate, so it's not evidence of notability because its existence or lack thereof for any candidate is a question of the candidate's choice to respond or not, not of the media outlet picking and choosing who gets one. So toting up the references that actually count for something, there simply aren't enough left to deem him a special case over and above other candidates, and the fact that one of them is Al Jazeera isn't a magic bullet all by itself.
The notability test for an election candidate is not "does some temporarily newsy media coverage exist today?" — because, again, for election candidates it never ever doesn't — but "does the media coverage that exists today already demonstrate a compelling reason to believe that even if he loses the race this fall, people will still be looking for information about him ten years from now anyway?" Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly not a “campaign brochure”; instead it is a brief factual account that is based on multiple reputable cited sources. I am the original author of this article. I am not affiliated with the Campa-Najjar campaign. If Campa-Najjar happens to lose in the primary, the outcome would then likely be that the article should be deleted. According to the information at WP:POLOUTCOMES: “Candidates who ran but never were elected…” and “Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable…” are often merged into lists or deleted. If, as appears more likely, Campa-Najjar moves on to the general election, he will then receive much more widespread attention and the article should certainly be kept. Campa-Najjar is the presumptive Democratic candidate in the election, as he leads the polling and fundraising among the Democrats, and has received the endorsement of the California Democratic party among many others. True, this campaign has not yet reached the level of coverage that Ossoff’s eventually did, but bear in mind that it is still primary season. Campa-Najjar is notable as the first Latino Arab American congressional candidate, as well for being an unusually young candidate. Campa-Najjar’s likely opponent in the race, Duncan Hunter, is currently under FBI investigation for improperly diverting campaign funds for personal use. Overall, this is a particularly noteworthy candidate. To some degree, various media articles already indicate the notability, but in principle they only reflect noteworthiness, they do not create it. If the current version of the article does not adequately reflect the noteworthiness of the subject, you can fix it. In the words of the page linked by Bearcat (at ‘years from now’): “Just wait and see. Remember, there is no deadline and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball. This is especially true during a news spike when there is mass interest to create and update articles on a current event, regardless of whether it may be historically significant later on. Also, editors updating an article affected by a current event may not necessarily be the same ones participating in the clean up and maintenance of the page months or even years later. Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism.” B P G PhD (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"True, this campaign has not yet reached the level of coverage that Ossoff’s eventually did, but bear in mind that it is still primary season. " - Generally, we don't create articles on people whom we think might become notable at some point in the undetermined future (see: WP:CRYSTALBALL). If we did, every garage band in America would have an article here. Chetsford (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:TOOSOON. Individual has received coverage primarily for a single event therefore per WP:BIO1E the individual biography should be redirected to the event.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:03, 31 May 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.