- 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 delete. Seems like this topic is not yet notable to have an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Lindsay Parkhurst (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)
Delete. Article, written like a campaign brochure as these things almost always are, about a person notable only as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a forthcoming election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- if you cannot credibly demonstrate and source that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of her candidacy, then she has to win the seat, not just run for it, to collect notability from the election itself. No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins, but nothing written or sourced here gets her a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand your personal feelings on the matter. Can you please reference the Wikipedia policy you are saying?
To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia's policies do not require that a person need to be "already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of [their] candidacy." For the rules regarding a subject getting their own article (notability requirement), the independent sub-requirement refers to the sources. The sources must be independent of the subject.
"Notability is the standard of whether a subject can have its own Wikipedia article."
To be pass the Notability test:
"If a topic has received significant coverage [yes, in more than one newspaper where it's ABOUT her, not just mentions her, in addition to the political websites] in reliable sources [newspapers are deemed reliable, as is Ballotpedia] that are independent of the subject [subject has no control or influence over these publications], it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
WP:GNG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually Ballotpedia is not considered a reliable source — it's a user-generated source which will contain (usually self-published) content about every candidate for every elected office in every election in the United States. And yes, when it comes to satisfying WP:NPOL, an unelected candidate is not considered notable just for the fact of being a candidate — either she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, or she does not become notable enough for an article until she wins the election. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite is absolutely true. Equally true is this: the United States Secretary of State is an unelected politician. Carrite, will you go delete John Kerry's article please? He is an unelected politician. You are an expert on Wikipedia rules. Because he is an unelected politician, he MUST not have a page. (I'm just going with what you said). But allow me to elaborate. If being unelected is (especially in the short matter-of-fact manner in which you write it) a disqualifier for being the subject of an article, then why has their existed since 2005 the Wikipedia category American political candidates (which includes subcategories for positions as far down the totem pole as mayors)? Carrite, will you go please delete that category? Clearly a category that's named after a rule that disqualifies a topic from being an article must be erased immediately. After all, as you state, an unelected politician cannot have a page. Allow me to pose another discussion. If someone is a candidate, they can only have a page if they are the incumbent (because the other candidates who are not the incumbents are not elected). Carrite, if you are 100% confident that what you wrote is correct, then you would have to logically agree there should not exist a category called "American political candidates" because such a category would allow for the rule-breaking pages of candidates who are not yet elected. Carrite, are you affiliated with the Democratic Party at any level, any Democratic PAC, or the campaign of the individual who Lindsay Parkhurst is running against? If so, you must publicly state that on Wikipedia. For the record, I have no affiliation or connection to the subject of this article. My core purpose is to give non-incumbents running for the state legislature their fair space on the 6th most heavily trafficked website in the world (as long, of course, as they are notable and covered in credible news sources). (The following is my opinion: The political system is so rigged and the deck is stacked against non-incumbents so bad in Illinois, that if we pile on to that stacked deck by refusing to allow CANDIDATES to be the subject of articles, then shame on everyone. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that once a discussion has been closed, you are not permitted to keep the discussion going by posting new comments to it almost a month after it's closed. That said, your logic is faulty. John Kerry holds a notable position to which he was appointed, and he did hold an elected position for many, many years before that — he is in no way analogous to a person who is notable only as an unelected candidate for office. The existence of Category:American political candidates does not mean that all candidates are automatically accepted as notable just for being candidates — there are some instances of people who were already notable for other things and then by the way also happened to run for office and lose (see, frex, Jack Kevorkian) and the category exists to file them in it; it does not mean that we automatically accept articles about every candidate in an election, if "candidate in an election" is the only notability claim they have. Wikipedia is not the media, and is not bound by an "equal time for all candidates" rule; we are an encyclopedia, and are bound by a will people still need this information ten years from now rule. That means people get articles for winning election to a notable office, and not just for being candidates — and no, it's not a bias either, because the same rule applies regardless of whether the candidate is a Democrat or a Republican or a Libertarian or a Green or an independent. We are an encyclopedia, not a repository of campaign brochures for political hopefuls. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2016 (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.