1161:
academic field I'm aware of is a source with an opinion on the subject deemed inherently unreliable. Unreliability seems to rely on the organization and its general reputation, not its having of opinions. However, even if we were to put SI Live aside, as
Stalwart has pointed out a cursory Google search provides a plethora of reliable sources corroborating every important point in the article. Now, where they got that information and whether or not they corroborated it with sources outside the campaign is impossible to know. However, is Knowledge (XXG) in the business of judging the fact checkers at the NY Daily News and others? Because as far as I understand it, the Daily News has never come under serious scrutiny for its reliability. Yet to say there are no reliable sources backing up the previously mentioned parts of the article is to throw suspicion on not just SI Live but a laundry list of local news agencies. My point: reliable sources exist to back up every important point in the article.
727:
And wouldn't a pared-down version be an almost completely empty article? Even after some searching, I have found no record (online or otherwise) of her time with the archdiocese or as a business strategist, let alone her position managing logistics for the '08 papal visit. I don't doubt that these things are /true/ but verifiable seems unlikely, right? At present, all we seem to be able to say is that she exists, and she's running, and she's got some endorsements. I can't even corroborate details via sources like ballotpedia or followthemoney.com because she's not listed on either of those sites. If there is enough substance available to fill out this article, then I am all for it, but I don't know where that would be found. I defer to your experience, of course, but I'm concerned that giving the article benefit-of-the-doubt won't have the desired effect of laying the groundwork for a more successful page. *
891:
paragraphs: the lead, and a short description of the ongoing election. At that point, I think it's worth merging, because the
Election page contains very little useful information and could benefit from what we have here. I think it's especially useful because Guerriero definitely does not pass WP:GNG if she doesn't win the election, and nor, probably, does her opponent Reshma Saujani, but information about them will always remain relevant to the Election page. *
483:- Should she be listed on the page (assuming one exists) for the election for this office? Yes. Should she have her own page? No. She's done nothing notable to warrant her own page. Running for office, even President of the United States, does not mean you are now notable enough to warrant your own page. I can run for President, however just because my name gets listed because I've sent in paperwork, doesn't mean I'm notable.
520:. That is, per policy, enough to "warrant her own page". Just having your name on the ballot is not enough but then you're likely to be the subject of significant coverage just for being listed. In this case, she has received significant endorsements from various unions and has (related to those endorsement and independent of those endorsements) been the subject of coverage. As far as I'm concerned, she meets criteria 2 and 3 of
890:
My position: the sources we have are inadequate to back up anything but the shallowest claims; "Cathy
Guerriero has received x, y, and z endorsements from the community". The remainder of the page is largely superfluous, unsourced information, and I think the page could arguably be condensed to two
850:
is an article about endorsements in the public advocate election that does a much better job of remaining neutral. I would feel more comfortable with this if the other sources resembled that. I am probably reaching the end of the meaningful contributions I can make on this particular aspect of the
726:
I'm definitely not trying to dump this article, forgive me if it seems that way, I'm just trying to understand. Most of those articles aren't neutral sources; they're all either from sources of potential bias or positions of definite advocacy for her campaign. What is "reliable" in this situation?
556:
Keywords being multiple and reliable, right? I'm still learning here. I'm disinclined to consider CathyGuerriero.com a reliable source. I'm also wary of the consistently positive profiles she receives from Staten Island Live -- she is not explicitly endorsed by them, but she previously worked as a
1175:
Thanks. I'm still learning the ropes here but what would be a reliable enough source for these claims? I live in New York and thought it was odd she didn't have a page (especially since I think there are a lot of other politicians who have done even less who do have pages) so I created it, but if
1035:
Indeed! :-) (My sense of the 1E question is that it hinges on her involvement with the archdiocese/papal visit. Her academic career seems to have been limited to a single senior adjunct position, which is to say that she has taught classes; I have not found any scholarly work by her. Her business
385:
I proposed a merge of this article into the election's page for more-or-less the same reasons, but I think "significant press coverage" is tenuous here. Virtually all of
Guerriero's web presence has been generated in the last eleven months, evidently by her campaign. Is a merge not the right idea
790:
be biased and there's always an extent to which coverage of a campaign might come across as advocacy for that campaign. There are certainly a couple in that list that read more like media endorsements than matter-of-fact reporting. But in the US, media outlets routinely endorse one candidate or
1160:
I think I'll weigh in at this point. I'm uncomfortable with how ready Ben is to disregard various news agencies as untrustworthy. Granted SI Live could be seen as not neutral, though I'd hardly argue that that makes them a bad source. The world isn't neutral, much less the news, and yet in no
791:
another (something alien to many other countries around the world). If we nixed all articles from outlets that endorsed candidates, we'd end up not covering US politics at all - most of the major papers end up endorsing someone, as I understand it. I'm from
Australia where we don't even
1040:
working in pharmaceutical development. If independent reference or record can be found to support the claim that she oversaw a portion of the 2008 papal visit to the US, then it's definitely worth consideration by someone better versed than me in notability within the
Catholic
932:
Just to jump in here, since I haven't gotten an answer: what sources would be adequate? The NYTimes might be more trustworthy than the Daily News or Staten Island
Advance or various other smaller news sources, but I don't see why there's a reason to doubt them in this case.
312:
I do not believe running alone is enough to meet the criteria for notability. Just holding an office is not enough to meet the criteria for notability. In this case she is not an established politician nor has she met the criteria for notability via another
845:
You're right that media endorsements are a little strange, but I think it's worth noting the difference between The New York Times endorsing Barack Obama a week before the election, and single-purpose "news blogs" advocating for a candidate three months out.
557:
sports writer for the Staten Island
Advance, the paper that owns that site. I'm not even accusing these sources of bias, but wouldn't we differentiate between independent coverage and the machinations of her campaign? *
169:
1245:
781:
No, not at all, nor am I particularly zealous about keeping it (and haven't even lodged a proper "keep vote" yet). Always good to talk these things through in cases where there are questions and I'm glad
626:
501:
Essentially right -- isn't this what merge would be for? Does merge not deprecate
Guerriero's page in favor of making Election page more robust? Excuse me if I don't understand the difference here.*
981:
Yeah, I don't strongly disagree with any of that. I'm still not convinced to the point where I think this should be kept, but I might wait to see if anyone has a view on my 1E question. Good chat!
200:
Non-notable candidate for NYC Public
Advocate. Running for an office does not necessarily establish notability nor does their appear to be anything in her life establish notability.
1230:
580:
For educational purposes, can you explain what this page looks like if it is neither merged nor deleted? It needs significant revision for neutral tone and superfluous detail.*
122:
386:
here? Most of this page can be scrapped for now, but any relevance she might have has to do with a current event, right? Do we wait until the dust settles on the campaign?
1260:
163:
1213:
So at this point, what do we do? Seems like there are at least some people (myself included) who think Cathy Guerriero is a legitimate subject and meets the criteria.
1300:
1279:
51:
618:
129:
448:
Yeah, gotta say, I would have a problem with us having an article for one candidate for a particular minor office but not another, especially since
1098:
685:
95:
90:
681:
99:
248:
Please cite how this meets Knowledge (XXG) guidelines for notability. Being a candidate for office does not automatically establish
17:
641:, both of which are already in the article. Even with a couple removed because of a potential bias, there's still quite a bit there.
351:
is enough, regardless of what she received the coverage for. There are, of course, a few exceptions to that "regardless", one being
847:
278:- I suppose the issue here is whether her running for office would be considered, by our standard, one event for the purposes of
82:
1282:
unless included coverage shows WP:GNG is met. Discrete search term, and already appropriately included in the election article.
630:
749:
184:
1102:
786:
brought here for discussion. I've added some of those sources. I suppose the issue is that in any election campaign, sources
151:
255:
Cathy Guerriero falls within the category of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."
282:. If we accept that the things that brought her to becoming a candidate represent significant enough a history to nullify
605:
First part - yes and yes we would. But don't forget we're not just looking at what is in the article right now, but what
1331:
40:
638:
634:
622:
659:
614:
230:-She's a major candidate for office in New York City who would represent millions of people. That's significant.
145:
1312:
1291:
1267:
1252:
1237:
1222:
1185:
1170:
1113:
994:
942:
812:
701:
675:
541:
492:
465:
427:
414:
At the very least I would hope that this discussion considers page of other questionably-notable candidate,
395:
368:
334:
303:
264:
239:
221:
141:
64:
737:
521:
1045:
1036:
consultancy also seems to be campaign window-dressing; I have not found a website or any record beyond a
1327:
1264:
1249:
1234:
1166:
1109:
987:
805:
694:
668:
534:
458:
361:
296:
60:
36:
191:
1162:
1105:
86:
1287:
745:
423:
391:
330:
217:
177:
610:
1218:
1181:
938:
260:
235:
352:
283:
279:
1308:
488:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1326:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
157:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
982:
800:
689:
663:
529:
453:
356:
291:
56:
796:
525:
517:
348:
287:
249:
78:
70:
651:
1283:
783:
741:
419:
415:
387:
314:
201:
647:
1214:
1177:
934:
256:
231:
795:
elected "Public Advocate" positions so even that is alien to me. All I can go on is
1304:
484:
286:
then the obvious and significant coverage of her and her campaign get her over the
1303:. A short section on the subject's campaign (and career) could be included there.
116:
1097:
I have found sources from both of the schools the article claims she teaches at.
1176:
there are other, more reliable sources needed, I'm happy to look for them.
851:
discussion, so I will leave further source questions for someone else. *
646:
Second part - it needs paring back to only those claims that can be
1037:
654:. With the sources above, that should be a little easier. Needing
1320:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
656:"significant revision for neutral tone and superfluous detail"
516:
Essentially, yes, but the issue here is that she has received
1246:
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
1044:
Thanks for working with me here. I consider this a case of
452:
candidate's campaign seems to have received more coverage.
355:. I'm interesting in what others think about that aspect.
662:
sort of problem, of course, not a reason for deletion.
112:
108:
104:
176:
349:
significant coverage in independent reliable sources
190:
518:significant coverage in multiple reliable sources
290:line without any concern whatsoever, in my view.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1334:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1231:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
1261:list of New York-related deletion discussions
8:
1301:New York City Public Advocate election, 2013
1280:New York City Public Advocate election, 2013
1259:Note: This debate has been included in the
1244:Note: This debate has been included in the
1229:Note: This debate has been included in the
418:, whose page is an evolved form of this one.
52:New York City Public Advocate election, 2013
1258:
1243:
1228:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
528:. Any reason to think otherwise?
1:
733:07:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
1313:16:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
1292:14:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
1268:13:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
1253:13:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
1238:13:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
1223:21:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
1186:14:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
1171:14:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
1114:14:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
1054:14:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
995:13:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
943:14:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
897:13:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
857:13:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
813:09:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
702:07:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
676:07:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
586:07:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
563:07:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
542:06:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
507:06:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
493:06:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
466:05:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
428:04:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
396:04:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
369:04:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
335:03:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
304:03:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
265:03:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
240:02:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
222:02:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
65:00:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
1351:
1323:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
609:be in the article per
347:No, possibly not, but
1038:two-year engagement
48:The result was
1270:
1255:
1240:
1099:Teacher's College
754:
740:comment added by
1342:
1325:
1265:Northamerica1000
1250:Northamerica1000
1235:Northamerica1000
1053:
991:
896:
856:
809:
753:
734:
732:
698:
672:
660:WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM
652:reliable sources
615:WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM
585:
562:
538:
506:
462:
365:
327:
322:
317:
300:
214:
209:
204:
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
34:
1350:
1349:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1332:deletion review
1321:
1049:
989:
892:
852:
807:
735:
728:
696:
670:
581:
558:
536:
502:
460:
363:
323:
318:
315:
298:
210:
205:
202:
137:
128:
93:
79:Cathy Guerriero
77:
74:
71:Cathy Guerriero
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1348:
1346:
1337:
1336:
1316:
1315:
1294:
1272:
1271:
1256:
1241:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1042:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
678:
643:
642:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
547:
546:
545:
544:
511:
510:
509:
508:
496:
495:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
416:Reshma Saujani
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
340:
339:
338:
337:
307:
306:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
243:
242:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1347:
1335:
1333:
1329:
1324:
1318:
1317:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1295:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1274:
1273:
1269:
1266:
1262:
1257:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1242:
1239:
1236:
1232:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1052:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
996:
993:
992:
986:
985:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
944:
940:
936:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
895:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
855:
849:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
814:
811:
810:
804:
803:
798:
794:
789:
785:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
751:
747:
743:
739:
731:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
703:
700:
699:
693:
692:
687:
683:
679:
677:
674:
673:
667:
666:
661:
657:
653:
649:
645:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
584:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
561:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
543:
540:
539:
533:
532:
527:
523:
522:WP:POLITICIAN
519:
515:
514:
513:
512:
505:
500:
499:
498:
497:
494:
490:
486:
482:
479:
478:
467:
464:
463:
457:
456:
451:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
397:
393:
389:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
370:
367:
366:
360:
359:
354:
350:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
336:
332:
328:
326:
321:
311:
310:
309:
308:
305:
302:
301:
295:
294:
289:
285:
281:
277:
274:
273:
266:
262:
258:
254:
253:
251:
247:
246:
245:
244:
241:
237:
233:
229:
226:
225:
224:
223:
219:
215:
213:
208:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
62:
58:
54:
53:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1322:
1319:
1296:
1275:
1212:
1050:
1046:WP:ENCOURAGE
988:
983:
893:
853:
806:
801:
792:
787:
736:— Preceding
729:
695:
690:
669:
664:
655:
635:this article
606:
582:
559:
535:
530:
503:
480:
459:
454:
449:
362:
357:
324:
319:
297:
292:
275:
227:
211:
206:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
50:redirect to
49:
47:
31:
28:
1163:Stonehengee
1106:Stonehengee
164:free images
57:Mark Arsten
250:notability
1328:talk page
1284:Dru of Id
784:reddogsix
742:Kneuronak
611:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
1330:or in a
1297:Redirect
1276:Redirect
1215:Msrpotus
1178:Msrpotus
1041:church.)
984:Stalwart
935:Msrpotus
802:Stalwart
750:contribs
738:unsigned
691:Stalwart
665:Stalwart
648:verified
639:this one
531:Stalwart
455:Stalwart
358:Stalwart
353:WP:BLP1E
293:Stalwart
284:WP:BLP1E
280:WP:BLP1E
257:Msrpotus
232:Msrpotus
123:View log
39:or in a
1305:Enos733
633:. Plus
617:, like
485:Caffeyw
481:Comment
313:effort.
276:Comment
228:Comment
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
797:WP:GNG
526:WP:GNG
288:WP:GNG
142:Google
100:delete
1299:- To
1278:- To
788:might
658:is a
607:could
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1309:talk
1288:talk
1219:talk
1182:talk
1167:talk
1110:talk
1101:and
1048:. *
939:talk
848:Here
793:have
746:talk
686:this
684:and
682:this
680:And
637:and
631:this
629:and
627:this
623:this
619:this
613:and
524:and
489:talk
450:this
424:talk
392:talk
331:talk
261:talk
236:talk
218:talk
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
61:talk
1103:NYU
1051:Ben
990:111
894:Ben
854:Ben
808:111
730:Ben
697:111
671:111
650:by
583:Ben
560:Ben
537:111
504:Ben
461:111
420:Ben
388:Ben
364:111
325:six
320:dog
316:red
299:111
212:six
207:dog
203:red
192:TWL
121:– (
1311:)
1290:)
1263:.
1248:.
1233:.
1221:)
1184:)
1169:)
1112:)
941:)
799:.
752:)
748:•
688:.
625:,
621:,
491:)
426:)
394:)
333:)
263:)
252:.
238:)
220:)
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
63:)
55:.
1307:(
1286:(
1217:(
1180:(
1165:(
1108:(
937:(
744:(
487:(
422:(
390:(
329:(
259:(
234:(
216:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
59:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.