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 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania#District 17. The arguments for notability as a politician are weak. The arguments for keeping as an author are stronger, but there's still rough consensus that he's not quite over the threshold of notability independent from his book. The "redirect" closure recognizes this. Editors are free to change the redirect target to the book if there's consensus for that. Sandstein 10:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Parnell (Pennsylvania politician)[edit]

Sean Parnell (Pennsylvania politician) (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)

PROD declined. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. He spoke at the 2020 Republican National Convention last night, but that's not a notability criteria. He's an underdog in the November general election. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I DISAGREE. We should at least wait until after the election to decide whether or not to delete this page. After all, if he gets elected then he will be notable enough that we'd just have to recreate this page if it's deleted. - Seanr451 (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. If he's elected, then he gets a page. He doesn't get one as a candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would normally say delete per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES, except it seems plausible that this person meets WP:AUTHOR, no? There looks to be substantial coverage of his book, Outlaw Platoon, like here in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and here in Kirkus Reviews. Marquardtika (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Marquardtika, Outlaw Platoon has its own article. Why would the author need one? John R. Bruning doesn't have an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he "needs one" per se, just that I see a plausible notability argument being made under WP:AUTHOR rather than WP:POLITICIAN. Some merging could take place, too. Maybe there should be a Sean Parnell article but no Outlaw Platoon article, for instance. I'm not totally convinced but think this is a more complex case than the usual WP:POLOUTCOMES, where I almost always vote to merge into the relevant election article. Marquardtika (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair point. I personally see AUTHOR#3 as overly vague and problematic. In a case like this, I don't see why the book and the author should both have articles if the notability is only based on this one book. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I’m sorry but I don’t know how to do this... I’ll read all the primers when I get back to my desktop and can also log an account. The fact the ADMIN writes “underdog” shows bias right there, and the fact he requested deletion just hours after the RNC speech is suspicious, sorry. I saw the speech, a day later heard something on-air so decided to google sean parnell, and couldn’t find a wiki page. The fact that he was a scheduled 5min speaker, when AOC only got a minute, he wasn’t some fly-by video testimonial, and his speech was indeed about inclusiveness, something this ADMIN deleted in his biased showing of non-inclusiveness. I respect the ADMIN’s Grand Wizard wiki mod-status but please stick to sticks & balls... (again MY APOlOGIES for newbie errors) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C52:7400:66CA:4588:D34A:1923:3AA1 (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OMG comment above is from me. Question,,, as part of my update that Sean is a relevant topic given his speech at the RNC Convention, I also tried to include a link to the PBS video and the aforementioned one-sentence description of the speech. Question to the Admin making changes, If a link and "approved" description of OutLaw Platoon can be included, why can't a link and description of his speech? Lastly, the webform said article "edits" were not required to have a summary of changes, so I didn't on three subsequent small edits correcting name and some character deletions which for some reason the Admin didn't seem to appreciate (about to read primers now but adhd is already kicking in at the prospect,,, :( LucaGrauman (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. In recent years, I am an infrequent Wikipedia editor. I created this page, not because I'm especially interested in the topic, but because I saw this person giving a speech at the 2020 RNC and wondered to myself, "who the hell is this guy?" I turned to Wikipedia, as I usually do, but when I searched for the gentleman's name, I found an article for an identically-named Alaskan politician, and spent more than several seconds, somewhat confused, wondering, "who the hell is this other guy?" Once I realized that there is a second living American politician with an identical name, I set out to fix this issue for the next reader. If readers can more easily access relevant verified knowledge, Wikipedia has been improved. HiDrNick! 01:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins. It is not Wikipedia's job to maintain articles about as yet unelected candidates in future elections: the rule is not that all of the candidates get articles now and then after election day we delete the ones who lost, it is that we wait until the election is over before we start articles about any of the new winners. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for aspiring future notables to publicize themselves or their campaigns — and simply having spoken at the convention is not in and of itself a notability criterion either. Anybody who watched the speech and wanted to find out who this guy is will find his campaign materials and campaign coverage on the web as it is, so there's no need for us to suspend our rules in order to curate that content for them. We don't do "temporary notability pending the outcome of a future event that may or may not erase it" — we wait until his passage of a permanent notability criterion has already been secured before he's allowed to have an article, and for politicians that means holding a notable political office and not just running for one. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete People do not become notable for becoming party nominees for election. They become notable for being elected to office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Probably more notable as an author/military veteran than political candidate. Not a huge fan of Fox but here is a profile. Here is a US Army profile. Interview with the Daily Signal. Here is some Pittsburgh coverage. This isn't even including the book reviews. All in all, I think there is enough coverage for a page, and we don't even have to consider him as a candidate. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and/or Redirect to either the RNC or the election in which they are running. Muboshgu is absolutely right in their response to SeanR451. If Parnell wins election in November, we can recreate the page, but to have the article right now not only provides WP:UNDUE, but also doesn't meet WP:NPOL. As for whether he meets WP:NAUTHOR, I don't see that at this current time.Bkissin (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain how the article violates UNDUE - there's no rule stating that candidates cannot have articles. A redirect to the RNC would not make sense, and while a redirect to Outlaw Platoon would be better than deletion, he has written several other books. He meets NAUTHOR as well as GNG. I don't understand the enthusiasm for deleting candidates articles. Perhaps a move to Sean Parnell (author) since he is not technically a politician? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Candidates get articles only in one of two specific scenarios: either (a) it can be properly demonstrated that they already passed another inclusion guideline independently of their candidacy, so that their preexisting notability renders the fact that they haven't gotten over NPOL yet as irrelevant, or (b) it can be properly demonstrated that their candidacy is much more special than most other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. The mere fact that a candidate has some campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL, because every candidate always has some campaign coverage — which means that every candidate would always get that exemption and nobody would ever actually have to be measured against NPOL at all anymore. But even WP:NAUTHOR is not automatically passed just because his book exists — notability as a writer requires things like noteworthy literary awards, and/or considerably more critical attention being paid to the books than either his BLP or the book's article (which is sourced two-thirds to primary sources and podcasts rather than reliably sourced evidence of notability as a book) is actually showing. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An important piece of Bearcat's argument is nod only made up, but has recently been rejected by the community. There's a recent RFC on modifying NPOL to incorporate the "independently of their candidacy" standard, and that proposal has gone down in flames, meeting broad opposition while gathering no more than token support. When such a proposal has been clearly rejected by the community, it's very hard to see why a good faith user would present it as though it were part of a policy or guideline. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • While I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to say your interpretation of the guidelines is the only correct interpretation. In particular, the 10 year test is highly subjective, to be almost worthless. I can say people will care in 10 years, and you can say the opposite, and neither of us can be absolutely right. And I never claimed that NAUTHOR was passed simply because the book exists, that is you putting words in my mouth. The book has been reviewed in several notable newspapers/periodicals that it deserves an article. And Parnell has been profiled in several reliable sources owing to his military/writing career to deserve a page. In short, he is not a typical small-time candidate, like a lawyer or city councilman, whose only claim to fame is being a candidate for office. And I don't support keeping this article because I agree with his candidacy, since I oppose the majority of Parnell's political positions, but rather on the sourcing that exists on the man. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect to Outlaw Platoon The question in my mind is whether the subject meets WP:Author. Outlaw Platoon is a memoir, which is increasingly citied in academic works (from a review in "The Army Lawyer" to being used as an exemplar of military narrative in the Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies). Certainly all of this points toward the book being notable. While in certain cases it is possible to separate the book from the author, the memoir format of the subject's work and the fact that the subject is the author of three additional works published by William Morrow and Company makes the subject notable for being an author (see this review). --Enos733 (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets both WP:AUTHOR and the GNG. We certainly have a vocal contingent of editors who believe that Wikipedia's coverage of politics should be less extensive and comprehensive than its coverage of wrestlers, lingerie models, and professional Super Smash Bros. players, but the vociferousness of those proponents should obscure the fact that it is a remarkably stupid idea in the context of building an encyclopedia. And the argument that notability of a candidate must be establised "independently of their candidacy" is just plain fraudulent: it's never been part of any actual policy or guideline, and a recent proposal to add it to NPOL has gone down in flames, with nearly unanimous opposition. The !votes embracing this principle are groundless and should be discounted by the closer. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to election page/sub-section. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 20:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, unelected person. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment Just noting that this page should not be deleted as the redirect to Outlaw Platoon is clear and obvious should he not be found notable as an author. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to restoring if he gets elected. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect here. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - after John E. James being kept, a politician needing to be elected for inclusion on Wikipedia isn't much a requirement, and in some ways Parnell has been given more weight over James with his placement at the RNC. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2020 (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.