514:
one and not two — and if she doesn't win the election, then this will just have to be relisted for deletion again anyway. And furthermore, if we set a moratorium on listing unelected candidates' articles for deletion when the election is only X number of days away, then by definition we're setting a binding precedent that would permit every candidate in every election to just suddenly flood
Knowledge with their campaign brochures on Day X, right when they most want that last minute burst of extra campaign publicity in the hopes of pushing them over the top. So no matter how many days away the election happens to be, we still have to treat unelected candidate articles exactly the same as we would at any other time. I'll grant that the process gives us a bit of wiggle room in cases where the election is literally just a matter of
965:. And writers are not automatically notable just because you can find one or two articles in their hometown media about the fact that they won a local poetry contest — our criteria for writer notability require nationalized notability markers, such as having a national bestseller or winning a Pulitzer. High school athletes aren't exempted from having to pass our notability standards for sportspeople just because they got a couple of human interest pieces in their local media about the fact that they only have three toes on their kicking foot. And on and so forth. Politicians aren't being treated differently from other occupations here — we have a long established consensus that the existence of a small handful of
470:- If, as seems very likely, this AFD gets re-listed twice to get a clear consensus (i.e., once on the 14th, and then once again on the 21st), we will practically be at the day of the run-off election (3rd of December) by the time the consensus has to be assessed (some time in the week after the 28th of November). McLean is an overwhelming favourite to win that election as she had a near-majority (45%) in the first round. There is Ooodles of coverage of her in state-level media so she's practically guaranteed to meet
1071:. While there is a timing issue surrounding an AfD of a political candidate close to an election, the usual standard of a delayed AfD is about 8-10 days from an election (to account for one relist). As Bearcat points out above, there is a concern that Knowledge could become a repository of campaign brochures in the waning days of an election (and I can attest, they do and they are hard to patrol ). In the interim, there is a possibility of a
790:
recent events that are likely to continue being covered in reliable sources). We've discuss the possible precedent effect of simply staying proceedings, but this is a pretty distinct case and easy to distinguish from others based on the facts (how many cities of this size have this kind of run-off election with this kind of likely result?).
608:, Apologies if I was not clear on my previous message above. I was not saying the creator could not discuss the notability of the subject here, but I was respond to User Gbawden "From KidAd's talk page to me: It is very likely that this woman will be the next mayor of Boise". As we stand today, the subject does not pass
789:
has been invoked, but this is a guide about article-content, and doesn't effect the freedom of editors to use common sense in assess notability to see if it is plausible that something/someone is likely to remain notable (see for example the tendency to "Keep for now" when assessing the notability of
513:
There's no rule that relisting always has to happen; it's an option for cases where consensus is still uncertain after seven days, not a universal feature of deletion process that all discussions automatically go through as a matter of course. And even if there is a relisting, there can still be just
853:
No-one is proposing to list McLean as mayor in the article - merely stating that she is very likely to be mayor within days and that her notability should be viewed in this light for the purposes of this AFD. Obama was already clearly notable at the date you are discussing. I'm not sure what you are
801:
anyway. Moreover, we know that McLean is already in the first run-off election ever held in Boise, a city - a state-capital indeed - with a population (~230,000 city-centre, ~350,000 urban, ~700,000 metro) the equal of some small countries, which appears to indicate at least some level of notability
956:
election, that fact is not automatically enough to deem a person as passing GNG and therefore exempted from having to pass NPOL. And by the same token, musicians are not automatically notable just because you can find one or two articles in their hometown media about their winning of a local battle
825:
was not the 44th
President of United States irregardless how many supporters of his chanting "Yes we can" or how many positive "opinion poll" results conducted and we could not make an entry in Obama page in Knowledge to indicate he surely would have won the Presidency race because logic and common
681:
them from having to pass NPOL, because every candidate in every election would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL if it did. So the notability of a candidate is not based on the principle of "does some media coverage of the campaign exist?", it's based on the principle of "does that media
378:
From KidAd's talk page to me: It is very likely that this woman will be the next mayor of Boise, Idaho within the next few weeks. As the current mayor, David Bieter has a page, she ought to have one as well. If she is elected then that is a different story. As it is now she doesn't appear to meet
319:
is the largest city in Idaho with a population of approximately 205,000. It is also the 97th largest city in an
America out of 314 cities with a population over 100,000. Seeing as it is very likely that McLean will become mayor after the December 3rd runoff election, I see no point in deleting the
876:
election automatically has free rein to bum rush
Knowledge with their campaign brochures in the final month. And by exactly the same token, if we decide that purely routine coverage of the election campaign in the local media is enough to hand a not yet elected candidate a free pass over GNG that
559:
There's also no rule that the article would even have to go to DELREV at all. If an article gets deleted because the subject was only a candidate at the time of the discussion, but then wins the election in the end, there's no rule that DELREV has to weigh in before the article can be restored or
540:
is a important philosophical point, if only one expressed in an essay, which I think points towards just waiting for the result 26 days from now which is almost certainly going to see this lady elected as mayor of a major city. And this is before we even discuss whether this AFD might get sent to
612:
irregardless how we look at it. Without bias or setting a precedence that because opinion indicates the candidate is likely to be nominated then the page should be not be deleted in
Knowledge. If the article need to be recreated again after the election, then it is just a one click away.
312:
Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived
495:'s idea that we delete today and then recreate on election day seem needlessly bureaucratic, especially when you consider that deletion would likely not take place today, but instead just days before the election after relisting of the AFD.
428:
to win or not carry no weight. So as of today, the only standard we can judge her against is the one for city councillors — and the standard for city councillors is not being passed, because it requires evidence that she's uniquely much
490:
created the article as though this were a convincing argument for deletion - you can just as easily argue that the page-creator is often the person who is best placed to discuss the notability of the subject. Similarly
254:
for a politician does not hold a national position and sources for their up coming campaign. Knowledge is not a platform for advertising campgain and if subject is elected in the future, then article can be recreated.
219:
60:
but it doesn't seem like it is considered adequate, as well as somewhat thinly supported concerns about advertising. Thus this is a delete, although if/when she is elected people can just ask for restoration at
1049:
The coverage is not significant enough to rise abouve routine for mayoral candidates and city council members. Even if elected mayor of Boise she would not be default notable, she is not even close right
892:
Simply put, GNG is not just "two or more pieces of media coverage exist, and nothing else matters after that" — it also tests for factors like the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't
536:
There's no rule that re-listing take place, but unless there's a very clear consensus - which as of now there isn't - it will be re-listed (observe all the re-listed articles on today's AFD page).
940:
We have an established consensus that it is not our mandate or goal to be an indiscriminate repository of campaign brochures for political candidates, so the notability bar for politicians is
644:
905:. Some kinds of coverage simply do not count for as much toward the notability equation as others do — and routine local coverage of an election campaign in which the subject is still only a
868:
The point is that if we decree that there's now a moratorium on deleting candidate articles 30 days or less before election day just because there's a chance that the person might win, then
1101:
the AFD on a person who's still only an unelected candidate as of the moment you find the article — we just have a bit of wiggle room at the back end about taking a couple of extra days to
677:
Every candidate in every election can always show a handful of local campaign coverage in the local media — so such coverage does not automatically translate into a BASIC pass that
973:
media is not in and of itself an automatic GNG-based exemption from actually having to pass our quantified notability criteria for their occupation, and that applies to virtually
172:
269:
213:
1026:
286:
854:
getting at here. Deleting this article will in all likelihood simply result in it being mechanically re-created on the 3rd of
December - what's the point?
119:
412:, without prejudice against recreation in December if she wins the runoff. Candidates do not get Knowledge articles just for being candidates; she has to
104:
917:
win, then the campaign coverage can be used to pad out the article with additional content and sourcing — but as long as she's still only a
682:
coverage demonstrate a reason why the candidacy is much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would satisfy the
179:
396:- Creator's (KidAd) opinion on the subject likely to get elected is not the variable for notability acceptance and plays no role here.
1067:
for now (while allowing the article to be recreated in draft space). As others have stated, candidates are not presumed notable under
145:
140:
433:
notable than most other city councillors. Yes, Boise is a large enough city that its mayors would generally be accepted as passing
149:
992:
win the election is not a reason to ignore the rules, thus setting a precedent that would inherently disembowel NPOL entirely.
99:
92:
17:
641:
437:, so this can certainly be recreated if she actually wins the mayoral election — but as of today, she's still only a mayoral
132:
234:
830:. Here is the same, as election has yet to be held that means no elected politicians could be announced, that means it is
201:
638:
635:
1076:
345:
You are the creator of the page. Pls state you reason to vote keep based on
Knowledge notability guidelines.Thank you.
113:
109:
56:
and b) that they will more likely than not meet NPOL in a few weeks anyhow. There are also claims of this meeting
1133:
1055:
40:
195:
944:
a notable political office and not just running for one — and precisely because some local campaign coverage
1034:
70:
1114:
1088:
1059:
1038:
1001:
863:
844:
811:
794:
745:
719:
672:
619:
587:
569:
554:
531:
504:
462:
402:
388:
369:
351:
295:
278:
261:
191:
74:
1129:
307:
36:
1097:
And just to clarify further, even at the "8-10 days" mark there still isn't actually a moratorium on
1051:
537:
241:
227:
1030:
731:'s edits when I made my edit just now. Thanks to Bearcat for restoring them. Same thought as per
136:
66:
710:
the ballots have been counted, not on advance punditry about who is or isn't "favoured" to win.
578:
this article if it were deleted based on the present state of consensus, even ignoring my vote.
487:
361:
342:
321:
449:
deleted articles with one click of a button if circumstances change, the fact that the article
1110:
1084:
997:
831:
827:
786:
715:
691:
565:
527:
458:
384:
88:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1128:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
453:
have to be recreated in a month is not a reason to exempt her from the normal process today.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
913:
as of today, is the weak kind of coverage and not the strong kind. That is, if and when she
575:
542:
250:
Subject is a city council of Boise City and currently is running of mayor position. Fails
62:
207:
859:
839:
807:
778:
774:
770:
758:
754:
740:
736:
668:
654:
631:
614:
583:
550:
500:
483:
471:
397:
365:
346:
325:
290:
273:
256:
57:
988:
the article in two seconds flat, with one easy click on one button. So the fact that she
773:. Indeed, there is, as far as I am aware, no consensus on what the interplay between the
420:
the mayoralty to claim notability under our inclusion standards for mayors, and people's
1068:
835:
798:
793:
But I don't want this to turn into an abstract discussion about guidelines - it's pure
782:
766:
762:
683:
609:
475:
434:
251:
53:
648:
128:
80:
52:. Seems like we have a clear consensus here that a) the topic currently doesn't meet
797:
not to simply delete an article mere days before we can be fairly sure it will meet
1106:
1080:
993:
822:
750:
732:
728:
711:
658:
561:
523:
492:
454:
380:
360:
My comment was in progress when you inserted my status as the creator of the page.
316:
166:
651:
are almost certainly going to fall away on the 3rd of
December. What's the rush?
961:
signifiers of importance, such as having a national charting hit or winning a
855:
803:
724:
664:
605:
579:
546:
496:
522:
out from election day would be dangerous to
Knowledge's mission and mandate.
518:
away, but a blanket moratorium on listing candidate articles for deletion a
65:
without having to go through deletion review or other complex procedures.
957:
of the bands competition — our criteria for musical notability require
694:, our notability standards for politicians are not based on anybody's
781:-pass can be enough to save notability even when guidelines like
1124:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
445:
passed NPOL yet. And since administrators have the ability to
657:
I think you accidentally deleted a discussion between me and
486:
but I think they're wrong to repeated invoke the fact that
897:
the topic, the geographic range of where the coverage is
739:
does not apply here for campaign coverage in local media.
162:
158:
154:
901:
from, and the context of what they're getting covered
727:
My apologies. I somehow accidentally removed your and
226:
925:
her over the bar in and of itself, precisely because
877:
exempts them from actually having to pass NPOL, then
320:page only to have to recreate it in a few weeks.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1136:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1025:Note: This discussion has been included in the
285:Note: This discussion has been included in the
270:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
268:Note: This discussion has been included in the
921:, the existence of campaign coverage does not
838:as per common sense and Knowledge guidelines .
977:occupation and not just to politicians alone.
937:show the existence of some campaign coverage.
702:to win or not; they're based entirely on who
478:at that point. It seems a no-brainer just to
240:
8:
984:win the election, then an administrator can
120:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
1027:list of Women-related deletion discussions
1024:
885:election automatically gets that pass and
287:list of Idaho-related deletion discussions
284:
267:
769:is also not a trump-card to play against
777:and the more specific guidelines is. A
306:per my earlier statement. According to
7:
821:. Just as before November 4, 2008,
24:
330:editor is the creator of the page
105:Introduction to deletion process
698:about whether the candidate is
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
889:ever has to pass NPOL anymore.
647:) and the objections based on
1:
1115:15:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
1089:05:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
1060:04:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
630:She could also pass based on
75:08:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
1039:21:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
1002:16:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
864:10:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
845:09:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
812:08:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
746:15:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
720:14:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
673:14:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
620:14:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
588:15:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
570:14:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
555:14:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
532:14:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
505:14:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
463:14:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
403:06:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
389:06:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
370:06:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
352:06:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
296:05:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
279:05:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
262:05:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
1077:2019 Boise mayoral election
95:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1153:
574:I for one certainly would
826:sense predicated that is
416:the election and thereby
328:) 06:06, 7 November 2019
1126:Please do not modify it.
686:for enduring notability
661:due to an edit-conflict.
482:. I normally agree with
32:Please do not modify it.
969:coverage in a person's
929:candidate for mayor in
690:if they lose?" And per
480:KEEP until election day
93:Articles for deletion
424:about whether she's
980:And, again, if she
834:and subject fails
1052:John Pack Lambert
1041:
315:" For reference,
298:
281:
110:Guide to deletion
100:How to contribute
1144:
1105:the discussion.
663:(already fixed)
331:
245:
244:
230:
182:
170:
152:
90:
34:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1134:deletion review
329:
187:
178:
143:
127:
124:
87:
84:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1150:
1148:
1139:
1138:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1092:
1091:
1062:
1043:
1042:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
978:
938:
909:, and has not
890:
848:
847:
791:
761:doesn't trump
623:
622:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
508:
507:
465:
406:
405:
391:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
355:
354:
333:
332:
308:WP:POLOUTCOMES
300:
299:
282:
248:
247:
184:
123:
122:
117:
107:
102:
85:
83:
78:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1149:
1137:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1122:
1121:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1048:
1047:Strong delete
1045:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1031:Coolabahapple
1028:
1023:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
959:nationalizing
955:
952:candidate in
951:
947:
943:
939:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
891:
888:
884:
881:candidate in
880:
875:
872:candidate in
871:
867:
866:
865:
861:
857:
852:
851:
850:
849:
846:
843:
842:
837:
833:
829:
824:
820:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
809:
805:
800:
796:
792:
788:
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
765:? Maybe, but
764:
760:
756:
752:
749:
748:
747:
744:
743:
738:
734:
730:
726:
723:
722:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
684:ten year test
680:
676:
675:
674:
670:
666:
662:
660:
656:
650:
646:
643:
640:
637:
633:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
621:
618:
617:
611:
607:
604:
601:
600:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
572:
571:
567:
563:
558:
557:
556:
552:
548:
544:
539:
538:WP:NODEADLINE
535:
534:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
512:
511:
510:
509:
506:
502:
498:
494:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
466:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
408:
407:
404:
401:
400:
395:
392:
390:
386:
382:
377:
371:
367:
363:
359:
358:
357:
356:
353:
350:
349:
344:
340:
337:
336:
335:
334:
327:
323:
318:
314:
309:
305:
302:
301:
297:
294:
293:
288:
283:
280:
277:
276:
271:
266:
265:
264:
263:
260:
259:
253:
243:
239:
236:
233:
229:
225:
221:
218:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
193:
190:
189:Find sources:
185:
181:
177:
174:
168:
164:
160:
156:
151:
147:
142:
138:
134:
130:
129:Lauren McLean
126:
125:
121:
118:
115:
111:
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
94:
89:
82:
81:Lauren McLean
79:
77:
76:
72:
68:
67:Jo-Jo Eumerus
64:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1125:
1123:
1102:
1098:
1072:
1064:
1046:
989:
985:
981:
974:
970:
966:
962:
958:
953:
949:
945:
941:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
894:
886:
882:
878:
873:
869:
840:
823:Barack Obama
818:
785:aren't met.
741:
733:User:Bearcat
729:User:Bearcat
707:
703:
699:
695:
687:
678:
652:
634:(see, e.g.,
615:
602:
519:
515:
479:
467:
450:
446:
442:
438:
430:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
398:
393:
347:
338:
317:Boise, Idaho
311:
303:
291:
274:
257:
249:
237:
231:
223:
216:
210:
204:
198:
188:
175:
86:
49:
47:
31:
28:
948:exists for
911:already won
795:commonsense
696:predictions
560:recreated.
422:predictions
214:free images
1099:initiating
841:CASSIOPEIA
832:WP:CYRSTAL
828:WP:CYRSTAL
787:WP:CRYSTAL
755:CASSIOPEIA
742:CASSIOPEIA
735:regarding
725:User:FOARP
692:WP:CRYSTAL
655:CASSIOPEIA
616:CASSIOPEIA
484:CASSIOPEIA
399:CASSIOPEIA
348:CASSIOPEIA
292:CASSIOPEIA
275:CASSIOPEIA
258:CASSIOPEIA
1130:talk page
933:city can
919:candidate
907:candidate
802:already.
576:WP:DELREV
543:WP:DELREV
439:candidate
394:*Comment
63:WP:REFUND
37:talk page
1132:or in a
1073:redirect
779:WP:BASIC
775:WP:BASIC
771:WP:BASIC
759:WP:BASIC
737:WP:BASIC
632:WP:BASIC
472:WP:BASIC
441:who has
379:WP:NPOL
173:View log
114:glossary
58:WP:BASIC
39:or in a
1107:Bearcat
1081:Enos733
1075:to the
1069:WP:NPOL
994:Bearcat
986:restore
942:holding
836:WP:NPOL
819:Comment
799:WP:NPOL
783:WP:NPOL
767:WP:NPOL
763:WP:NPOL
751:Bearcat
712:Bearcat
679:exempts
659:Bearcat
610:WP:NPOL
603:Comment
562:Bearcat
524:Bearcat
493:Bearcat
476:WP:NPOL
455:Bearcat
447:restore
435:WP:NPOL
381:Gbawden
339:Comment
252:WP:NPOL
220:WP refs
208:scholar
146:protect
141:history
91:New to
54:WP:NPOL
1065:Delete
963:Grammy
946:always
935:always
899:coming
887:nobody
700:likely
649:WP:POL
426:likely
410:Delete
192:Google
150:delete
50:delete
1103:close
990:might
975:every
971:local
967:local
954:every
950:every
931:every
927:every
895:about
883:every
879:every
874:every
870:every
856:FOARP
804:FOARP
708:after
665:FOARP
653:PS -
606:FOARP
580:FOARP
547:FOARP
520:month
516:hours
497:FOARP
488:KidAd
451:might
362:KidAd
343:KidAd
322:KidAd
235:JSTOR
196:books
180:Stats
167:views
159:watch
155:links
16:<
1111:talk
1085:talk
1079:. --
1056:talk
1050:now.
1035:talk
998:talk
982:does
915:does
860:talk
808:talk
716:talk
706:win
688:even
669:talk
584:talk
566:talk
551:talk
528:talk
501:talk
459:talk
431:more
418:hold
385:talk
366:talk
326:talk
304:Keep
228:FENS
202:news
163:logs
137:talk
133:edit
71:talk
923:get
903:for
704:did
468:Meh
443:not
414:win
313:AFD
310:, "
242:TWL
171:– (
1113:)
1087:)
1058:)
1037:)
1029:.
1000:)
862:)
810:)
757:-
718:)
671:)
586:)
568:)
553:)
545:.
530:)
503:)
474:,
461:)
387:)
368:)
341::
289:.
272:.
222:)
165:|
161:|
157:|
153:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
73:)
1109:(
1083:(
1054:(
1033:(
996:(
858:(
806:(
753:/
714:(
667:(
645:4
642:3
639:2
636:1
582:(
564:(
549:(
526:(
499:(
457:(
383:(
364:(
324:(
246:)
238:·
232:·
224:·
217:·
211:·
205:·
199:·
194:(
186:(
183:)
176:·
169:)
131:(
116:)
112:(
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.