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. Valid WP:COI concerns have been raised, but the overall consensus suggests this individual is notable. The content should be closely monitored but the consensus seems to support the existence of an article in some form. ~ mazca talk 01:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Eastman

[edit]
Kara Eastman (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)

She won the primary election last night and will face the incumbent in November. But, primary elections are not covered by WP:NPOLITICIAN. She therefore needs to meet WP:GNG, and that is dubious. Much coverage is coming out today, like this from CNN, but notice how little it talks about the candidate, but rather about the election and the "blue wave" nationally. The headline is "Democrats' anti-Trump resistance scores a big primary win in Nebraska", not "Eastman scores a big primary win in Nebraska". Similarly, the coverage in the article that is secondary is of the election, not about the candidate. And many of the citations in the article are not independent of the subject. Citations exist to her own website. And the Justice Democrats website is also certainly not independent of the subject as they are partisan and have endorsed the candidate. I also see citations to DCCC.org and FEC.gov; these are not citations that establish notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion - Please see my response on the talk page; a minority of sources covering her now are simply talking about the election, contrary to your arguments. Sure, that one CNN article is focusing on the Democrats as a whole, but what about Who is Kara Eastman? First-time female candidate stuns Democratic establishment in Nebraska's primaries (Newsweek), Pro-Abortion Rights Progressive Wins Nebraska Democratic House Primary (Huffington Post), Medicare-For-All progressive woman wins surprise victory in key Nebraska house primary (Vox), and others? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 16:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion - To say Eastman isn't notable couldn't be further from the truth. Here are a list of independent sources that have covered Eastman (and articles are coming out literally as I type this):
Vox https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/16/17359188/kara-eastman-nebraska-2nd-congressional-election-medicare-for-all
Huffington Post https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kara-eastman-wins-nebraska-democratic-primary_us_5afbce44e4b0a59b4dfeaa62
CNN https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/politics/kara-eastman-nebraska-democrats-trump-resistance/index.html
The Hill http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/387851-former-dem-reps-comeback-bid-foiled-by-neb-primary-loss
CNBC https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/16/nebraska-primary-results-gop-cheers-kara-eastman-win-over-brad-ashford.html
NPR https://www.npr.org/2018/05/16/611563660/after-tuesdays-primaries-democratic-divisions-take-hold-in-midterm-battle
Newsweek http://www.newsweek.com/female-candidate-kara-eastman-nebraska-928031
Associated Press + Yahoo News https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/political-newcomer-kara-eastman-wins-democratic-nomination-in-nebraska-congressional-race/2018/05/16/efbfe050-58c8-11e8-9889-07bcc1327f4b_story.html?utm_term=.a40d5a13c599 https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-eastman-wins-dem-nod-nebraskas-2nd-district-052016433--election.html
NBC News https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/upset-omaha-five-key-takeaways-tuesday-s-primaries-n874581
TYT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meYk8Lzh2Bc
ThinkProgress https://thinkprogress.org/tuesday-primaries-socialist-progressives-7d5653b47c7e/
Politico https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/16/tuesday-primaries-women-2018-218372
Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/05/16/daily-202-the-far-left-is-winning-the-democratic-civil-war/5afb5fe230fb042588799528/?utm_term=.8e30fc9f704d
US News https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/nebraska/articles/2018-05-15/the-latest-polls-open-for-nebraska-primary-election
There are far more (literally hundreds), but the websites themselves are less recognizable. As for the citations, that issue can be remedied and does not warrant deletion. Ottoshade (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And like I said above, those citations verify that Kara Eastman exists, and verify that she won the primary yesterday, but I do not believe they go far enough in establishing her notability independent of the election she's in. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is a classic WP:NPOL case. There is a lot of coverage of her surrounding her current political candidacy, but that's not typically enough to warrant keeping an article. We need to see significant coverage of her apart from her candidacy to establish that she is notable. If she wins the general, she'll have an article, but she doesn't meet our typical notability threshold for politicians just yet. Marquardtika (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.
     Done
  2. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
     Done
  3. "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.
     Done
  4. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
     Done (Far more websites than just the official campaign website are cited, even for content about the campaign and the policies advocated for)
  5. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
     Done
Please keep in mind that while being a candidate does not provide inherent notability, it also does not inherently mean there is a lack of notability. Even failed politicians ranging from Evan McMullin to Vermin Supreme have proven notable enough for Wikipedia because of the amount of attention they received, and because of their actions outside of their respective elections; we already have several sources on Kara Eastman's non-profit work as the founder of the Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to Muboshgu: I didn't comment on GNG. I said I thought the article should be kept, and why. Ballotpedia is good but we can offer something different here. Ballotpedia is good but I don't think readers "can find any info they need on Ballotpedia" which tends to leave out narrative and context. The case for deleting looks like the deletion cases for Archie Parnell and for Mark Harris (North Carolina politician). These are characters who did surprisingly well in some kind of election and got a bunch of press coverage but haven't won an important office yet. They represent threads of important political movements, movements that are probably significant, historic, or lasting. Like those articles, we should keep this one. I don't see value in bringing them to AfD and having lengthy unpleasant legalistic words about it. I wish you hadn't. -- econterms (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to all regarding WP:NPOL: Please read points two and three of NPOL:

I argue that the recent coverage from third party / non-local sources satisfies this criteria. Cheers. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note that WP:NOTNEWS covers day-to-day stories, specifically mentioning stories like routine sports games or the lives of celebrities, stories that bear no significance. As for the other policies you've mentioned, I disagree that this is WP:TOOSOON as I argue that she has already achieved enough notability to have an article. I genuinely don't see how this is WP:PROMO though, the article originally had problems with reading like an advert but once I went to the talk page requesting input from others on how that can be solved, the nom stated that they initially took too cursory a glance at the article and then removed the advertisement template. I think the real discussion here is regarding whether or not we should discount the coverage she is receiving nationally for her victory and by extension coverage of her not-for-profit; the claim about WP:PROMO is dismissed as it was never substantiated. I suspect that we likely wouldn't be proposing deletion if it was a stub about the Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance with a few sources like the ones we've found, but interestingly the arguments for deletion due to lack of notability emerge once large, national-level outlets put them in the spotlight. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with you. Please note the enduring notability test of WP:NOTNEWS. I may have missed one or two, but all of the sources provided have been produced in the last 24 hours. Also WP:PROMO is always a fear with an unelected candidate, and many of the sections of the page would also appear on her campaign website (issues/endorsements, et cetera) and are not encyclopaedic. Finally, she is not notable for being aligned with the Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance. SportingFlyer talk 21:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The enduring notability test is actually precisely what I was referring to in my previous post: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" As for WP:PROMO, I request that you find a specific example of where this is problematic, as the advertisement warning template was removed by the same editor that put it there shortly after I requested the specific examples needing attention. I don't think it's a sufficient argument to say that it's an article on a candidate, therefore it's automatic and inherent that WP:PROMO is a fear. We need specific areas to address. The sections that draw information from campaign websites are reinforced with local sources, sources from other states, and national sources. As for your last point, I disagree for two reasons. The first being that she is not simply aligned with it, but is both the founder and CEO of the non-profit organization, which has in fact received reliable, secondary coverage by news sources. If she wasn't also a candidate, this would simply be an article about that, albeit one out of countless short articles not threatened by potential deletion. In the event that there would truly be nothing left if we took out the campaign, then I'd concede that the article is just about that, but that's simply not the case. Per the reasons described in detail, she passes every point of NPOL and GNG, and the article does neither violates NOTNEWS nor PROMO. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still disagree. First, this coverage is not yet enduring, therefore it is WP:TOOSOON at best. Second, compare her article to Ashford's or Bacon's. Hers features issues and endorsements, whereas Bacon's features his positions as opposed to issues. Third, there's no way she would achieve independent notability for being the CEO of her company, and there's not enough sourcing there to show that anyways. The source on that one is primary. She passes neither NPOL or GNG, and we'll have to agree to disagree on that. SportingFlyer talk 22:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fine with this solution. SportingFlyer talk 23:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I don't see enough for a stand-alone article now. The Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance isn't prominent enough to make her notable based off of that, and the election coverage isn't so unusually prominent to avoid the general rule against candidates for office being notable based off coverage of their campaign. Even if she loses the general election, it's possible that in a few years she will be notable due to future accomplishments. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with the sources you've presented is that five out of the six of them are all from the same date, with the other from the week before. (Same problem with the articles presented above.) She may very well be notable by November, but merely winning a primary does not make one notable under WP:BLP1E. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person, with the event in this instance being the election. SportingFlyer talk 05:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to the guidelines, WP:BLP1E applies when all three are true: 1.) "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." This doesn't apply because there is more than one event described in the article including her candidacy announcement and her primary win. There is also discussion of her campaign that is published between those events. 2.) "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." That does not apply here as she is now a main candidate. It is likely she will receive even more coverage as a nominated candidate than she did before she won the nomination. 3.) "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Her becoming a candidate is significant (as evidenced by national attention) and her role is substantial as she's the main person in the event. Zero of the three required criteria for WP:BLP1E applies to this candidate. Lonehexagon (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, I misread it as an or. I still don't think lasting notability has been shown. SportingFlyer talk 05:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you do agree that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here? What guideline do you believe indicates that she is not notable? Lonehexagon (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E does apply here. Our usual standard for evaluating candidates for office is the internationalization of coverage. If a newspaper in Germany provides significant coverage of a candidate from Canada, then we know something special is about the candidate and not the campaign. We have constantly treated the campaign as one event (from speculation about who might run to post election events (see United States presidential election, 2020)). Secondly, unelected candidates are very likely to return and remain low profile individuals after the election (and unless there is something unique about a candidate or their platform, nearly all long term value can be kept in the page about the campaign [see my comment below to Deb]). Everything on this subject's page can be added to United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2018 and nothing would be lost. If the subject wins, of course a new page would be created. --Enos733 (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Resorting to COI tags is not how Wikipedia works, or should work. It is the same reason we do not move to draft space the pages of deleted candidates (see WP:POLOUTCOMES). What is appropriate, and a usual outcome, is a redirect to the article "detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010." In that space, certain biographical details can be added, as well as endorsements, polling, and other elections-related information. The problem with keeping articles about unelected candidates is two-fold. The first is that most candidates are low-profile individuals outside the context of their campaign; the second is that Wikipedia should not be a repository of campaign brochures, or a space for candidates (or their supporters) to push their vision and ideology. --Enos733 (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly a COI involved in the editing, but the subject's status does not allow for deletion on the grounds of notability. Deb (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Deb. The abundance of secondary sources that put what would otherwise be a local congressional race in the midwest to the national spotlight demonstrates notability; this is all that matters with regard to deletion. However, even if COI was grounds for deletion, the same user that initiated the nomination for deletion and added to the talk page a warning about a potential COI from Ottoshade agreed that the article doesn't actually contain any problematic advertorial content, meaning that this isn't actually a concern. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:04, 24 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.
More