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. ansh666 08:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Campa-Najjar (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)

Recreated only a few days after the last AfD closed as redirect. Still fails WP:NPOL, I'd add that we are probably looking at WP:NOT issues now also. John from Idegon (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G4. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've declined the speedy deletion. Strictly speaking, this article isn't a WP:G4 candidate, because the outcome of WP:Articles for deletion/Ammar Campa-Najjar was was WP:REDIRECT to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018. Feel free to edit the article, but please do not reinstate the redirect while this discussion is still ongoing. Thank you. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018 per the outcome of the previous AfD and because it is an appropriate outcome for a candidate for the US House. --Enos733 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. As I've had to point out far more often than usual this year given how unusually passionate people are for a midterm year, the fact that some coverage of the candidate exists in a campaign-specific context is not in and of itself a WP:GNG pass for a person notable only as an election candidate — every candidate in every election always gets some campaign-specific coverage, so if "some campaign coverage exists" were all it took to get a candidate over GNG then every candidate would always get over GNG, and our established consensus that candidates are not automatically notable just for being candidates would be inherently unenforceable because every candidate could always claim that same exemption from having to pass NPOL. So making a candidate notable enough for an article on the grounds of the candidacy itself does not just require "show that campaign coverage exists" — it requires "show that so much campaign coverage exists that he's got a credible claim to being a special case over and above most other candidates." But that's not what's being shown here, and neither does the article make any credible case that he would already have been deemed notable for other reasons prior to the candidacy. So it can be recreated if he wins the seat in November, but nothing here is enough to make him already eligible for inclusion today. I will grant that this isn't immediately redirectable on the grounds of the first discussion alone, as the notability claim has changed from "candidate in the primary" to "candidate who won the primary and is going into the general election accordingly" — but the inclusion test for politicians is winning the general election, not just the primary, so that change still isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• REDIRECT per Bearcat. Just being a candidate does not grant inherent notability and his only claim to notability is his candidacy. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and possible speedy redirect - are we going to keep having this be an issue for the rest of the election? SportingFlyer talk 19:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have no objection to the redirect, just wanted a consensus behind it for the sake of posterity (and dealing with those that may revert it again). John from Idegon (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a page about a straightforwardly notable individual and US political figure. See the national and international media coverage cited on the page, as well as a host of additional material available online and elsewhere to anyone who bothers to look. There is ongoing coverage with growing relevance now that he is a general election candidate, e.g. a recent article discusses him directly alongside Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who also has her own Wikipedia page as an unelected candidate ^[1]. Similarly, Campa-Najjar's opponent Duncan Hunter had a Wikipedia page even as an unelected candidate ^[2], even with a dearth of citations to support any notion of exceptional notability. It would be applying a ridiculous double standard to claim that coverage related primarily to a congressional candidacy is irrelevant for one person but sufficient for others. Furthermore, as mentioned in the previous redirecting session before the primary election, some of the media coverage is unrelated to the campaign. Bearcat can italicize every single word of the entire comment, if he likes, but the claims will still not hold any water. Sadly enough, the attempts by some users to rashly delete the page without discussion and then to ignore the evident notability of the subject appear obviously to be motivated by political biases. Wikipedia can and should aim for a higher degree of logic and impartiality. B P G PhD (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hunter has been a member of congress. THAT makes him notable. As the youngest person ever to run for congress, a notion of notability outside the particular campaign exists for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And of course, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is seldom considered a valid argument at AfD. B P G PhD, the time has come to ask, what is your connection to the subject of the article nominated for deletion here? Are you related to him, are you him or are you employed by him? Are you employed by or otherwise an active member of his campaign committee? Are you contracted to either him, his campaign committee or to his party? If these questions are offensive, I apologize in advance, but they are being asked because your position here seems to be more advocating for him, rather than for his article. Also, the majority of your edits have related in some way or another to this campaign. John from Idegon (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not the "youngest person ever to run for congress", and even if she is elected she will not be nearly the youngest person ever to serve in congress ^[1]. B P G PhD (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Duncan Hunter did not get to keep an article in advance of being elected to Congress. Somebody tried, as they always do for candidates, but it got deleted and was then restored after he won and his notability claim had thus changed. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting that Bearcat's claim regarding Duncan Hunter's Wikipedia entry, though rich in italicization, is contradicted by the historical record, which shows an entry for Hunter from 18:26, 12 June 2008‎ onward. B P G PhD (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, ffs. B P G PhD, if you had followed the instructions before posting here, you'd know that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is virtually never a persuasive argument here. But even if it was, compare this, the notability guidelines for politicians in June 2008, to WP:NPOL, the guidelines in effect today for politicians. Under the guidelines in effect THEN, Hunter likely was notable in June 2008. If the events then unfolded now with the same history his article would likely be deleted. It was correctly kept in 2008, and none of that has any relevance to this discussion whatsoever. Because OTHERSTUFF. Care to actually speak to the article at hand? Care to rebutt the below? John from Idegon (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The relevant sentence is completely identical in the two versions you cite: "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 primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." B P G PhD (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • • If only that coverage existed....there are 0 sources beyond the campaign. Without sources that discuss his life prior to the election, the only thing that can be produced is a campaign ad. John from Idegon (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • It appears that there is some confusion regarding the notability policy and particularly the phrase "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." John from Idegon writes "there are 0 sources beyond the campaign", but has discussed (below) several of the reliable cited sources that are independent of the subject. "Independent" here clearly refers to sources of news and information that are not controlled or written by the subject. It does not refer to news articles that are not "about" the subject, which would obviously be impossible. B P G PhD (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is based on this revision of the article, the revision immediately preceding B P G PhD's !vote.
  • ref 1 is his website, which could never support notability.
  • refs 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 are about his very first campaign for national or state office, an election that he has not won; hence failing WP:NPOL.
  • ref 4 is a tweet by the candidate, lacking both independence and reliability; hence do not support notability in any way.
  • ref 7 is his LinkedIn resume. cannot possibly speak to notability.
  • refs 5, 6, 14 are self written by the candidate - lacks independence and cannot possibly support notability.
  • ref 10 is a YouTube video of the candidate doing a talking head thing - lacks both independence and reliability. No help with notability.
  • ref 16 is clearly stated as an opinion piece, and is only reliable for the fact that it is their opinion and not for any factual content. Very weak support for notability (at best).
  • That leaves us with ref 15, an interview with The Atlantic. As an interview, there is obviously some independence problems. The only thing that can be used to vet notability in an interview is the analysis of the journalist conducting the interview. I am not seeing enough between the two marginally usable sources to support notability, and all the rest of the references say absolutely nothing whatsoever to notability. In short, my nomination stands. John from Idegon (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ammar Campa-Najjar meets WP:GNG due to multiple sources of independent media coverage. This independent media coverage includes international coverage from the Independent, a British publication,^[2] as well as several pieces of coverage from national publications that date two years before he announced his candidacy. ^[3][4][5][6]

• Comment Getting articles published in The Hill, The San Diego Union-Tribune, and The Washington Post is something that most people cannot claim, and so it is wrong to say it is "no help with notability." Moreover, Campa has at least four pieces of independent media coverage dating two years before he announced his candidacy. See my recent additions and references below. All of this independent media coverage combined - both from before his campaign started and after it - mean that Campa meets WP:GNG. Narayansg (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Narayansg (talk) 14:11, 17 July 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.